|
|
Post by mcnbear on Nov 1, 2019 8:32:05 GMT -5
Couple of things that are just my opinion. I'm just really not interested in an option heavy offense. I'm just not. Kennesaw did ramp up really quickly, but I think there are a few things with that school that are different, or can't be modeled, by Mercer. First of all, if I'm not mistaken, they relied VERY heavily on transfers. I am not a fan of that, in general. I think having people move all the way through the program start to finish is better for program building and makes ownership of the program less disposable. Next, Kennesaw can, how do I word this, admit anyone they want, new or transfer, regardless of their performance level in the more academic areas of their prior history. It makes their potential player pool much, much larger. The reality (that will always be a reality) is that it's hard to get in to Mercer, and it doesn't matter if you are an athlete or not. And that will always be something that has to be overcome compared to the Kennesaw/Chatt/ETSU's of the world. We/Mercer have much in common with the Academies that succeed with much less talent than their competition most Saturdays in the Fall. Academics and Culture matter to us, but we still have the ability to get talent at a level better than many FCS programs. Geography works heavily in our favor.
I understand your concerns on the option heavy offense, however having seen this offense a few times it is not what its perception is. It is much more of a big play offense than generally assumed. I love watching Navy play and if Army can win 11 games then what could we do here. Since we started this discussion I went back and watched some of the Ga Southern games on you tube, particularly the 2001 national championship game and that was a great looking offense. Would love to build something like that here! I agree with Trumpster the limitations we have here are real academically. I don't want to see us loosen that up personally so I think this is offense is a great equalizer and would be perfect for our school. What I really like to see is winning and I think this would give us be best chance to do that on a consistent basis! Just my opinion. The question is if a change is made, and I would love to see Coach Lamb turn it around I just don't think its going to happen, who could we get that would be a overall head coach and know this offense if we decide to go in that direction?
|
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 1, 2019 11:15:13 GMT -5
Oh, I've seen option based offenses plenty. I even played in a Wang T back in the day. Like I said before, I'm just not interested. I'm fine with some option concepts in a multiple offense (like Furman runs), but I just don't want to be The Citadel or Wofford. No thank you. Or GaSou. Blech. I wold just rather see balance (run and pass), creativity, and excellent execution on offense. That is what's hardest to defend. Also, most schools run that to try and overcome a talent deficiency. We don't have that. Nor should we have that, if recruiting is handled properly. Is is harder on us because of academic requirements. For sure. Does that mean we have to look at a talent equalizing offense to be successful? No. Furman is private and they've won national championships. And, I can tell you, Mercer will never compromise the academic requirements for athletics. It just won't happen. But I don't think that puts us in a situation where we can't be successful. |
|
|
|
Post by mcnbear on Nov 1, 2019 13:05:15 GMT -5
I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the flex option. That is what I would like to see and think would give us best chance. Earlier you indicated we have issues recruiting because of academics, but now we have no issues with talent? I guess we can keep beating our heads against the wall trying to do what every one else does and maybe never make the playoffs or seriously compete for a national championship. I'm not saying its not possible, but I certainly think it would be a better possibility at our school if we run a equalizer type offense. It hasn't worked here so far other than the first year in pioneer league.
Nevertheless I guess its something AD Cole will have to decide if he thinks change is necessary. Go Bears.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 1, 2019 14:31:06 GMT -5
Wait a sec, saying the player pool is smaller because of tougher admission requirements is not saying we can't compete on the talent front. Are there good players out there that could get into Chattanooga that couldn't get into Mercer? Yes. Do I think that means Mercer will always be less talented than Chatt.? Absolutely not. I think you are misinterpreting the conversation.
Also, it interesting to mention the service academies. When's the last time Army won a National Title? 1946? If your argument is running the option somehow gets you to the promised land, them and Navy aren't the best examples.
Also, the program is 6 years old (and only 5 years giving out scholarships) for crying out loud. We've had 1 head coach. It's not like we've been doing the same thing for 50 years and it doesn't work. I think the first 4 years, really, we were WAY ahead of schedule, and the reality is things really just got stagnant the last couple of years. It really not a fair sample size to point at a toddler of a football program and say, "Welp, they've been at this for 6 years now and it's clear the NEVER be competitive doing it this way." That's ludicrous.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mount de Sales on Nov 2, 2019 0:00:06 GMT -5
Kennesaw has already made it deep into the playoffs. Top 5 ranking as I type this. How old is their program? I want that type of success here.
We all want what’s best for the University, so we’re on the same team even though we disagree on the issue of how we get there.
Go Bears!
|
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 2, 2019 11:15:30 GMT -5
If you keep up with FCS at all, you know Kennesaw's ranking at the moment is pretty phantom. They have the easiest schedule in all of college football, and play in a truly atrocious conference. The Monmouth game today should actually be pretty revealing about what KSU really is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mount de Sales on Nov 2, 2019 13:47:49 GMT -5
I do, and I have for a long time. I agree this is a good test for them. I’m not in love with KSU, but I know what they’re doing is working better than most.
|
|
|
|
Post by FUBeAR on Nov 2, 2019 14:33:19 GMT -5
KSU...what they’re doing is working better than most. Or not...Losing 31-7 @ home @ half to the 1st halfway decent football team they have played this season. |
|
|
|
Post by Mount de Sales on Nov 2, 2019 14:47:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mount de Sales on Nov 2, 2019 14:51:36 GMT -5
Can we beat either of them right now?
|
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 2, 2019 15:01:31 GMT -5
What does this have to do with anything? |
|
|
|
Post by Mount de Sales on Nov 2, 2019 15:06:13 GMT -5
You really don’t know what The Citadel runs?
|
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 2, 2019 15:14:19 GMT -5
You really don’t know what The Citadel runs? Lol. So what you are saying is that it's just about scheme? And because 2019 Mercer lost to 2019 The Citadel, that's the justification for changing schemes? Dude, come on. There are only about 5000 other things that come into play as to why a team wins a football game. Talent, execution of the players, individual matchups, coaching, play calling, defensive scheme, effort... How many more things do you want me to name? And to be honest, if you don't clean up almost all of those things before you start thinking about what KIND of offense we run, the Lord Jesus himself could show come down from Heaven and hand you a playbook blessed by his Father and it wouldn't matter what plays are in it. Not to mention, if what you say is true, why hasn't the Citadel won every national championship for the last umpteen years. Gracious this is a terrible argument. What does North Dakota State run? Lol. Jesus... |
|
|
|
Post by Mount de Sales on Nov 2, 2019 15:23:25 GMT -5
Dude. I’m saying the system is better than what we’ve been doing. There are good and bad coaches trying every system. I know the flex gives us advantages that other systems do not. I didn’t expect this discussion to be so offensive.
Time to tailgate. Glad we’ve finally got fall weather.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearDownMU on Nov 2, 2019 15:38:01 GMT -5
Offensive? Really? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. But, I'll play your game. How about this: www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401128514Based on your logic, shouldn't we run Furman's offense? I mean, they beat us by 35 and it was over at the half. The Citadel score a late TD to make it an 11 point win. So, wouldn't that mean Furman's scheme is superior? AND, Furman is basically the same school as Mercer. Comparable size, private, high academic requirements, similar geographical recruiting pool. Seems to have worked better for them than the 1962 offense The Citadel ran against us did. |
|
