(B)
The program made progress right away, year one. Can't be denied. The previous coach had some of the same players and couldn't get it done, but Holgorsen did. Immediately.
ANSWER: Yes he does
Nothing to contend here.
(B)Beyond that you've conveniently leaving out that in Holgorsen's second year (and remember he had to start one year early) WVU was forced to leave the Big East and join the BIG 12--a HUGE change up. WVU had to go against entirely new teams and coaches in new venues. Had long travel to each game. Had to play 9 conference games. And the conference was far superior in talent to the Big East WVU left with more top ten and ranked opponents.
ANSWER: Total misunderstanding or mischaracterization. WVU didn't move into a new conference under Brown's watch, and the players on the team aren't moving into a new conference. They've been in the BIG 12. By your standards Holgorsen was moving into two new conferences when he came to WVU. His first year as coach he won the Big East, 10 games, and a historic BCS bowl win over heavily favored Clemson.
Brown has so far eked out a win by a td late over an fcs team and was blown out by a middling Missouri team that was defeated by Wyoming.
While the team didn't, the coaching staff did. Under your argument, Holgorsen actually went DOWN a step when he left a B12 team to become the coach of a Big East team. Under your premise, he SHOULD have won there and he did. Yet, the next year when we moved to the B12, a conference he was very familiar with, he couldn't maintain or win at the same standards as the year before. This is your whole premise, the current coaching staff should be able to maintain or surpass the achievements of the previous one. Add to that, you selectively leave out that team was filled with the previous coach's players along with the fact the defensive staff was still in place. The next year, when that defensive staff is replaced, what happened?
(B) Also, the previous coach left Holgorsen with severe depth issues that took about 3 to 4 years to correct.
ANSWER: Holgorsen was left with a deficit of talent after the previous coach underecruited for years. Brown doesn't share that problem, its a total mischaracterization of what he inherited. Brown inherited players from a team that contended for the BIG 12 championship the previous year. Brown had what was supposed to be the top RB corps in the BIG 12. 64 yds and two games later shows the coaching prowess at hand. Top ten offense the year before, after two games rated 7th worst in all fbs. Again this illustrates the coaching ability. Could there be a dropoff from the previous year--sure, but from top ten to bottom ten? NO.
Wrong. He was left with a deficit of PLAYERS but not necessarily talent. Holgorsen returned a team that had won the Orange Bowl, returned a top 10 offense, was ranked in the top 10, and barely scraped out a .500 season - all this with HIS staff all the way around which is the only fair way to judge both coaches (as you argue below).
Since your argument above is all about results, is this indicative of Holgorsen's lack of coaching ability, as you claim is Neal Brown's?
(B)And, Holgorsen brought in some of his own players year one as well. Around 12 players.
ANSWER: Yes, but people claim Holgorsen simply inherited an entire team of players and had no coaching influence on that 10 win BCS winning team. Its simply not true. And now they are claiming Brown is struggling because of Holgorsen as though he has no influence on the players he brought in or those he inherited or chased off. Simply not true on either front.
Nothing to contend here
(B)Now, Brown came in with what should have been the best RB corps in the BIG 12 and schemed up the second worst running attack in college football.
ANSWER: LIE. Complete fabrication. Holgorsen had two ten win seasons. Beat multiple ranked teams--more high ranked wins than any coach at WVU in history outside perhaps RR. And WVU competed against major programs like OU and Alabama in many games he coached, despite not having the stable of top notch recruits those programs enjoy. Holgorsen was the second winningest coach in the history of WVU football.
You must not have an understanding of how football works. A team is more than a corps. While the RB corps, "should have been the best... in the B12" find any mention of where the offensive line ranks. Where the QB ranks. The receiving corps. They all tie in together. Be consistent.
Second, your basing your argument on 8 seasons. Brown has been here for 2 games. And "competing" is a nice euphemism for LOSING. Dana was the second winningest coach in the history of WVU - at a 7 game average. That's more an indication of the history of our program than anything else wouldn't you say?
(B)He inherited many players from an offense that was top ten last year. They didn't all go pro. Brown and co. have taken that top ten offense straight down the toilet and coached it into the 7th worst offense in the nation--#123 of 130.
ANSWER: Go to the WVU roster and read. Anyone not a freshman(and then again even some of them) Brown inherited. And he pushed out at least 9 players that WERE on the roster, many highly regarded starters. Being named All-American or all BIG 12 is meaningless. There are teams across the country winning that do not have any fit that fake necessity.
Again I'll go back to what I wrote earlier. Holgorsen took a top 10 team, top 10 offense, to 7-6. Followed that up with an even WORSE season. Two and three years in, these were now HIS players.
Holgorsen pushed out many players over the years, including 15 or so the year before he left.
If you think having a team that doesn't have any all-conference players on it doesn't matter, well then you don't know football. Wonder why Kansas doesn't win 8 games a year under your metrics of understanding?
(B)The defense can't tackle or cover. Special teams are missing kicks and giving up return yards.
ANSWER: WVU under Holgorsen had some decent defensive years. He was bashed every year for the D even though two d coordinators were forced on him. That's the point--Brown is being excused when the claim was the D would be sooooo superior. The D isn't better. 38-7 dispels that myth.
"Decent" is another euphemism for not good enough. He was bashed every year for the defense because he's the head coach. The first coach that was "forced" wasn't, he simply got Casteel due to the circumstances of Stewart debacle and the second one was an attempt to save his job because he couldn't pick a good one himself. The defense is better, they've held their opponents in two games to way less what Holgorsen's defense typically gave up in one. Or do you conveniently forget giving up 50-60 points a game?
(B)Some of you want this to be Holgorsen's fault--but he is long gone. Brown has many players he brought in himself for this year, and he chased off at least 9 players--many starters from last years program.
ANSWER: LIE? Holgorsen isn't gone? Brown didn't bring in any players? Brown didn't chase off at least 9 WVU players--many starters? All statements are true--you are lying if you pretend they aren't true.
Yes, Holgorsen's gone. Only you can't let him go. None of the rest of what you wrote is. It's been proven to be false by many others besides me. Just because you won't believe it doesn't mean its a lie.
(B)This is ALL on Neal Brown and co.
ANSWER: ALL on Neal Brown. Nothing happening now has anything whatsoever to do with Holgorsen.
Just in THIS post you have claimed that Holgorsen was shortchanged by Stewart through:
1) poor recruiting
2) poor numbers
3) having coaches forced upon him
and those were the reasons why Holgorsen didn't win anything early on.
Yet NONE of this belongs to Holgorsen.
But, the ALL of the current problems on the team belong to Brown because Holgorsen left him:
1) a team that could win the B12 (yet Dana couldn't)
2) awesome recruits that could compete for the B12 (yet they couldn't under Dana)
See where you are wrong?
(B)They've taken a team on the brink of breaking through to a BIG 12 championship and turned it into a pitiful shell.
ANSWER: WVU was in contention for the BIG 12 championship until the FINAL game of the regular season. That is a FACT. You obviously don't like facts. You also apparently don't understand that WVU plays in one of the toughest conferences in the country--they were never going to walk through such a difficult conference. WVU also playes 10-11 P5 games per year, while i.e. acc and SEC teams are playing 8-9 and up until a couple years ago even the b10 played 8-9.
See, I like facts. I also like to win. The only fact that is truly important is that Dana couldn't win anything of significance. 7 win seasons over DII and the bottom of the B12 doesn't cut it, even in a tough conference. That's why he wasn't extended. That's why coaches across America get fired every year. The fact remains, if Brown doesn't achieve, he will be shown the door also.
(B)Holgorsen would have won (again) at least 7 or 8 games with the same team, and would have brought in a few more players himself. The RBs would have hundreds of yards rushing and WVU very well would have beaten Missouri.
ANSWER: An opinion supported by actual YEARLY results over 8 years. Only once did he not meet that. Two ten win seasons (how many of those has WVU EVER had?) Two 8 win seasons, and three 7 win seasons. That's better than virtually every coach ever at WVU outside RR and Nehlen. There's more evidence to support a 7-8 win (at least) season than not. You have NOTHING to support that he wouldn't have.
You're right. Only two games. Perhaps he should something similar to what Dana had before we can compare.
(B)Now its start over as though WVU is Kansas and always has been.
ANSWER: NOW--as in this year. But people are acting as though WVUs new coach inherited some terrible team in need of a total rebuild, when he really inherited a team near the top of the BIG 12 that contended up to the final game for a championship in that conference, that returned what was supposed to be the TOP RB corps in the BIG 12 this year. WVU was not a bottom dwellar, but under this new staff WVU looks poised to have one of the worst ever seasons in program history.
