All true. But do you feel that certain of our coaches (primarily OL and WR) are able to train kids players to execute well enough to do that?
Nothing will change
- Thread starter phatcat_rivals223240
- Start date
If you can't execute the basic play successfully, what makes you think you will be able to with they much more complicated playbook? Have to crawl before you can walk, etc. All plays are designed to get match up advantages. But if you cannot even do the simple ones...
? It sure does. When have we had near the talent of OSU, MI, PSU and usually others?
I don't think they executed too well in those games. Had they, a couple of those games (especially IA) might have been interesting but without it, we had no chance. All three of those teams had significantly more talent but we had dealt with that successfully in other games.
Hopefully, we can recruit players who will make it entertaining again for you. I found last season to be very entertaining, but I like to watch good defense. JJackson was very entertaining as well.
I can't tell from afar whether we've had poor recruiting, development, or coaching. Coaches are ultimately responsible for poor performance, though.
For a period, in there (95-96), on defense we certainly did. And check out the 1960 to 1963 Playboy All American features.
To be honest, I don't really care about the teams in the 1960s. The game and the whole machination around college football was different then, especially with the rollout of scholarship limits.
Even in 1995-1996, our best players were relatively limited athletes who just played their asses off. Fitz is a pretty good example -- he literally did cartwheels after breaking 5.0 in the 40 at the pro day and his NFL career is measured better in days than weeks because of his physical limitations, but he won pretty much every award out there for a defensive player by playing smart and hard. Autry and Bates were clear standouts that had viable pro careers, but the instances where we simply blew away other teams on paper based on talent alone were few and far between.
Disagree. The poster is spot on. NOTHING will change and Fitz will keep his job and ****** staff forever and ever !
He's not a cartoon character. He's also not as dumb as some on here seem to believe. If this team doesn't turn things around this year, I expect you'll see a change or two. He won't clean house. That's not his style. But he'll make a strategic change or two to the staff.
Of course, that is just a guess as I have no info and don't know the man at all except for what I see on tv. But I also think fan complaints tend to be way too over-simplified.
I didn't notice anyone belittling his intelligence, although there are many comments so maybe i mssed that, simply that he is stubborn, or worst case - doesn't KNOW what to do.
I find it amusing that people say things like your quote. "If this team doesn't turn things around this year, I expect you'll see a change or two."
Why would you think that? I'm not saying we won't improve, not saying anything other than, no matter the outcome, nothing will change.
If they lose, it will more "it's on us", " we didn't execute", "thumbs (previously up asses) not fingers"
You're right that no one said that directly, but I wonder if people think it sometimes.
As for my quote, I guess I think that because it seems like the logical thing to do. If he were to have fired any of them before, it would have been way too quick of a trigger and no respectable coach would want to work for him going forward. He really couldn't fire anyone after a 10 win season last year for the same reason, however, if they win only a few games this year with the same offensive problems, then I think his hand would be forced and no one would blame him for replacing some folks. But I have no idea what Fitz is thinking. I'm just guessing like everybody else.
But he could of and likely should have "cleaned house" after two consecutive losing seasons and no bowl game. He didn't and doubt that he will, unless the team goes winless or Phillips steps in. Maybe not even then but I would think that stubbornness would put his job in jeopardy , although maybe not at NU.
Recruiting prior to 95 and96 were sure not up to the rest of the conference. We did more with what we had and the talent level was still not on par with our opponents. We definitely did not out talent them. Barnett recruited well enough after those years but the only real success we had with those players (he only recruited higher level for a couple years and never a full roster of higher level players) was in 2000. And even then, transfers after he left hurt.
After the back to back 5 win disappointments, he always had that union thing dancing around out there. So, after the "why me?" and "what the heck did I do to deserve THIS?" elements of it all (which I can't blame him for at all), I sort of understand not changing. Not that I agreed after the 2nd season, but I understand riding out extenuating circumstances. Maybe he was thinking "3 strikes and you're out" and that was only 2. Who knows?
That sort of reasoning is gone now after the "10 win season". So now what's he going to do? I don't know. But I'll be curious to hear his reasoning. He won't say it publicly. But it will get around among the people he actually feels somewhat compelled to explain himself to.
I feel like people are underestimating what it takes to win at Northwestern if they think that two five-win seasons following the first bowl win in 60+ years is a reason to clean house. That doesn't seem like a good approach to managing an organization.
Let's go back to losing, parking was much easier! No washroom lines, concession lines and open seating. This is the way it's headed should the losses keep mounting.
Keep losing and more recruits will go searching for other schools.
Hmmm, the Buffalo Bills just fired their OC today
Keep losing and more recruits will go searching for other schools.
Hmmm, the Buffalo Bills just fired their OC today
No. It take more than 30 seconds of reflexive (non) thought, though.
What I find so ironic here is that the guys branded the "negative" or the "pessimists" are often the guys who believe that greatness and success for NU is achievable; whereas, the self-proclaimed "true" and "faithful" and "supportive" fans are the guys constantly justifying mediocrity, and criticizing anyone who actually believes that we are capable of greatness.
If this board had existed in 1992, and Gary Barnett was a fan and not a coach, he'd have been run off this board for suggesting that the status quo was not good enough and that greatness was indeed possible ... by guys who were perfectly content with 2-9 and 3-8 seasons because they were better than the winless seasons of the past.
Last edited:
Both seasons had extenuating circumstances. Injuries to KC, TS and VM and VMs departure and the union thing pretty much turning things upside down for both years plus guys being newer to their positions gave him some leeway. Then some justification for keeping guys after a 10 win season. It is not that a number of people did not see reasons to be concerned those years, just that there was some justification for his position after those years. But all those excuses would go by by with poor performance we have seen to date this year.
I have to disagree. I have very little doubt that if we keep losing and stay sub 500 which at this point seems almost assured, Fitz will make the necessary changes. It is hard to dump guys with 10 games remaining and the candidate pool will be much more robust after year end.
STOP with the union thing. Those of you don't like unions and the people they represent, take it to the Rant Board or elsewhere. Injuries hurt most those years and also poor coaching decisions. It's college football and not the political arena. Recruit players and coaches that will give NU a chance to compete. The new facility is a start, let's see what comes next. Maybe more cash for hiring better assistants with Power 5 program resumes.
In the spirit of a "challenge grant" or a "matching gift", I will wager a beer or a cigar to up to 10 people that there will be zero or one coaching change at end of season.
Any fools that take you up on that bet will lose. Fitz is who he is and it will be his downfall.
I would be willing to book this wager if we do not make a bowl game; wager doesn't make much sense if we end up having a successful season. So booked, if you add that caveat.
I don't think any rational person is calling for changes now. I don't believe we've heard this once (or if somebody did say it it was obvious hyperbole).
People are upset because we're approaching Einstein's definition of insanity with this offense. All the fans see it and are rightly frustrated.
I will be that fool. Unless we have a miracle rebound that puts us over 500 this coaching situation will have at least 1 change. I will take the cigar or brew with Jules too!
But... the bet is that there would need to be more than one change. Makes it different. I think Fitz offers up one and only one sacrifice.
It has nothing to do with whether people do or do not like unions. The previous posts are simply recognizing a fact of union organizing. Have you ever been associated with a union campaign where the relationship between those the union seeks to represent and "management" improves? The introduction of a union is antagonistic by design. Please note that I am not stating a position as to whether any such campaign is necessary or not (to improve working conditions, etc). But purely the fact that these campaigns are designed to increase perceived differences among members of an organization. And if this happens to a college football team, it could be a distraction and affect the results of the team. No one should have to stop making this argument as we discuss the results of previous seasons.
Sorry but I have never heard a single player state that the union discussion caused NU to lose a game. Not be prepared, bad coaching call and injuries, yes, checking a box on a ballot, no.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it didn't affect the team or the unity among the players and coaches. Things like confidence, morale, focus, and momentum can be hard to measure for any team but clearly have a tangible impact on performance.
Last edited:
So what's the problem this season? Wrong formations on defense, fumbles, dropped passes, bad line play. Has Colter snuck back on campus to organize a revolt? Let's be honest recruiting and developing those players is the fault of the coaching staff and the administration and until someone has enough guts to make changes, what we're seeing is what we will get more often then not.