Agree with all above... Which was my point... He has made the calculation that there is zero value in the "inherited" talent at key positions and has decided (probably out of confidence that the AD will be patient) that he must "get guys that can run the system" in here. Good luck and I totally agree with Optimistic's point about trend lines as well as Antarius' point about the eye test.

Trend Line: stagnated in year one. Inconclusive at best.. Zero change from the Bailiff final season at worst

Eye Test Positives: 1) Return game is really good.. People keep saying "Special teams".. Yes, they are good, but a good punter makes a kicking game look great... If he was firing shanks, everyone would say the kicking game was bad...Early season missed FG's can't be overlooked in overall evaluation... But yes, Special teams is coached well and positive . 2) The defense competes harder. It is plain to see that while it's still not a great defense, this staff has them playing and competing as hard as they can. 3) Messaging- At least we don't hear how many guys are hurt every week.

Eye Test Negatives: 1) System stubbornness. Power toss ain't a play this year. It hasn't been a play. It's not going to be a play this year.. But, by gosh it's coming. 2) OL was a known weakness coming in.. I haven't seen an attempt to "help" the scheme out there.. Again, it's Stanford 2.0.... 3) Who is the OC? Mack? Well, if Mack was the OC wouldn't we see QB run more? Maybe that's where we were going with Marshman... I tend to think that this is Bloomgren micromanaging the offense and truly a believer in "his" scheme... Stubborn today for sure... Bordering on arrogant.. And maybe in a couple years, genius.. maybe not...

(11-15-2018 11:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Sorry, I just thought we were comparing the first three years. Agree Bailiff was way too inconsistent. Every time I thought we were about to break out we slid back.

My only point by extending it was that after three it was pretty obvious to me what 4 and 5 were going to look like--exactly what they did look like. After 3, I'd hope to have a pretty good idea what 4 and 5 would look like under Bloomgren, or any other coach. Bailiff was exactly what we knew he was--a guy who could find lightning in a bottle when Barrick Nealy landed at San Marcos, but not a guy who could sustain. I never had that big a problem with the kneel out the clock deal in the playoff game. It got him a chance to win, which is all you want from a coaching decision, and they lost because they executed poorly when given that chance. Had he made a different coaching decision, and had they executed that decision as poorly, then he would have lost anyway. It was the execution, not the decision, that was the problem. But that was kind of always the case.

Quote:Disagree on the empty cupboard. No reason for Bloom to have thought it was otherwise after a 1-11 season, and the transfers. But Bloom had 8 months to review what he had in the cupboard and devise a plan to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses, and he didn't, IMO. Worse yet, to appears to me he hasn't made full and/or proper use of some of our best players that are still in the cupboard.

Not quite sure what the disagreement is here. I don't disagree with anything you said. He's into the same "square pegs into round holes" approach as the previous guy. Only difference is that at least this time the know what the round holes are supposed to look like.

Quote:I agree that it is fair to give him at least 3 years to show us that he was a good choice. Lots of people think it should be 5 years, to get a full team of just his recruits. But three is a minimum for fairness, and we certainly should see a trend by then.

Three is plenty. By the end of 3 you have a pretty good idea what 4 and 5 are going to look like. There are exceptions. Frank Beamer went 2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1 in his first three years at VaTech, which hardly indicated what was to come, and his 4, 5, and 6 were actually 6-5, 5-6, and 2-8-1, so it took a while for him to get going. But that's the exception, not the rule.

Quote:I thought and hoped he would live up to the expectations we put on him, and in some ways he has. Defense seems better, ST is better. But I will judge first on Ws and Ls, not how we look. I prefer ugly wins to crisp, valiant losses.
He had three years. He wasted this one, so now he has two. I hope he makes the most of them. I don't want to do the coach search, hire a new guy, give HIM three years, rinse and repeat, over and over.

I don't want to do that either, but if this one doesn't work, then that's our only real recourse. I much prefer a guy who adapts to one who forces people into slots where they don't fit. But if he can make it work, then I'm fine with it. Bailiff couldn't, and it was pretty obvious to me after 2009 that he wouldn't. Whichever way it goes with Bloomgren, I'll make up my mind then. I'll give him the same chance i gave his predecessors.