Fire Clawson?

[coredeac]

We aren't making a significant effort to improve facilities? :squint:

I stated, "...from classroom to facilities."

Recruiting. It's all about getting top-shelf football players who can compete. Until the university makes it an administrative goal to accept athletes on par with the competition, things won't improve significantly.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I stated, "...from classroom to facilities."

Recruiting. It's all about getting top-shelf football players who can compete. Until the university makes it an administrative goal to accept athletes on par with the competition, things won't improve significantly.

I still haven't seen convincing evidence that is the problem. I hear that excuse banded about a lot. The harder thing than admission at Wake is staying eligible. duke is an easier school than Wake for its entire population. Grade inflation elsewhere doesn't really exist at Wake.

 

[Tylerkong]

After year 4 the discussion will be what can Wake do to retain Clawson? Anyone who doesn't understand that football starts with your OL & DL, and these positions must be developed over time is lost. There are very few 5 STAR players who walk in and are physically ready to play & have the knowledge.

After a 17 minute breakdown at UNC & 15 minute breakdown to start the NCSUX game some want to fire Clawson? Love the passion, even if its firing randomly in the dark.

 

[Dekin]

The guy has shown he can build a program. From 0-11, 3-8, 7-4, 10-3, 9-4 at Fordham to 3-8, 9-4, 6-5, 11-3 at Richmond to 7-6, 2-10, 5-7, 8-5, 10-3 at Bowling Green (with conference championships at each school). Let's hope he can do it here, too.

I have spoken with alums from some of the previous places Clawson has coached.
They all said we will love him. It will take a few years, but it will happen

 

[Shorty]

And Duke made a significant effort, as a university, to improve its football program from the classroom to facilities. Until Wake Forest does the same, Jim Harbaugh and Nick Saban won't win here either.

We're getting Jim Harbaugh and Nick Saban?

 

[deacz]

Grobe's recruiting dove off a cliff his last few years, leaving us with a lot of making up to do. For example, all of our playable quarterbacks are first and second-year players. Thanks Wellman. It will take time, unfortunately, but that's the nature of building a football program.

 

[DeacsOrDie]

Just the thought of firing or even considering that Clawson's seat is getting hot is just dumb.

 

[bmoneydeac]

Someone with more inside info can add to this but it seems from the outside that we are recruiting many of the same players as duke, UNC, State, Vandy, etc but we just don't win enough of those battles and it's shown on the field. Are we actively cooling on guys that end up going to those schools that we think would have come here? Any examples? I hear the exception talk but never hear any specific names. Not trolling, just curious. 94, Strick, or other folks that know way more than me?

 

[FckVwls]

I'll build the case against Clawson, even though I think he's doing fine enough and would give him four years (as I said earlier in this thread):

At the FBS level, Clawson has proven to be a really poor offensive coach. His one year at Tennessee is basically the worst offense any strong national program has produced in the past decade (FEI offense 96/120). At Bowling Green, they were decent at offense year 1 running spread with inherited personnel. Starting year 2 they implimented the normal Clawfense as the rebuild started. In the 4 years in Clawson's scheme BGSU ranked FEI offense 108/120, 83/120, 102/124, 44/125.

44/125 at BGSU is good, and this season and MAC title is what got Clawson hired. However, BGSU was top five in the country at 3rd and 5+ conversions in 2013. Which is a very tough thing to replicate and count on to generate good offense year after year. Matt Johnson was/is a really special QB (he has 3300 yards, 29 TDs, 3 INTs this year so far).

Now at WFU the personnel has been horrible but the offensive schemes also seem horrible. I do think strong offense coaches can scheme their way with horrible personnel to better results than we have seen in 19 games. So I don't think BDL, others that aren't too high on Clawson are out of bounds with their viewpoint. I think there are some major concerns that Clawson will be able to put top 50 offenses on the field at Wake Forest.

 

[FckVwls]

I think the case for Clawson would be:

Clawson is not really a schemer, he's a program builder. He will improve your talent and improve your recruiting. At Richmond and Bowling Green it took 3-4 years before any progress was seen. Why would you hire a program builder for a coach and not give him time to do his thing?

I feel very comfortable with Clawson/Elko defenses too. The statistics are friendly and the defenses will likely be good when they are a veteran group.

 

[AlphaDeac]

Now at WFU the personnel has been horrible but the offensive schemes also seem horrible. I do think strong offense coaches can scheme their way with horrible personnel to better results than we have seen in 19 games.

When you have an offensive line that cannot consistently run-block or pass-block, there is no offensive scheme that will produce consistent results. It's trite but it's true ... it's not the x's and o's, it's the Jimmys and the Joes. Clawson has to recruit his way out of this.

 

[FckVwls]

When you have an offensive line that cannot consistently run-block or pass-block, there is no offensive scheme that will produce consistent results. It's trite but it's true ... it's not the x's and o's, it's the Jimmys and the Joes. Clawson has to recruit his way out of this.

Look at Baylor: They were legitimately horrible/broken and 111/119 rated offense in 2007. Art Briles first year in 2008 they were 25th. This is a bit extreme because Briles is so elite. But great offensive minds can really make a difference to productivity.

We have 8 seasons of FBS data on Clawson offense at this point...It's not just the bad roster left by Jim Grobe.

 

[liveanddiedeac]

Look at Baylor: They were legitimately horrible/broken and 111/119 rated offense in 2007. Art Briles first year in 2008 they were 25th. This is a bit extreme because Briles is so elite. But great offensive minds can really make a difference to productivity.

We have 8 seasons of FBS data on Clawson offense at this point...It's not just the bad roster left by Jim Grobe.

It's at least 90 percent the bad roster. If Clawson can't put good offenses on the field by 2017, then he deserves a lot of blame, still too early to really judge.

 

[Ayo]

Look at Baylor: They were legitimately horrible/broken and 111/119 rated offense in 2007. Art Briles first year in 2008 they were 25th. This is a bit extreme because Briles is so elite. But great offensive minds can really make a difference to productivity.

We have 8 seasons of FBS data on Clawson offense at this point...It's not just the bad roster left by Jim Grobe.

It's worth noting that a guy named Robert Griffin III took over in 2008, too.

 

[FckVwls]

Okay, perhaps the Baylor example was bad. I just think a strong offensive coach could do better.

 

[liveanddiedeac]

Okay, perhaps the Baylor example was bad. I just think a strong offensive coach could do better.

Maybe, but our current lack of talent and experience would be hard for anyone to have success with.

 

[FckVwls]

Maybe, but our current lack of talent and experience would be hard for anyone to have success with.

Of course. Chip Kelly isn't going to lead our roster to a good offense. But It's not like Tom Herman is putting up a S&P 128 offense with our 2014 roster either.

My point is the data from 2014 and 2015 is so bad, I think you can be slightly discouraged.

 

[inspectah]

Wasn't Briles' first game at Baylor against Wake? And didn't RGIII get a few snaps in that game? Or I am misremembering?

 

[Deac94]

Someone with more inside info can add to this but it seems from the outside that we are recruiting many of the same players as duke, UNC, State, Vandy, etc but we just don't win enough of those battles and it's shown on the field. Are we actively cooling on guys that end up going to those schools that we think would have come here? Any examples? I hear the exception talk but never hear any specific names. Not trolling, just curious. 94, Strick, or other folks that know way more than me?

I assume you are talking about cooling on guys because of academics? My perception is that Wake recruits kids with a reasonably wide range of GPAs and test scores. Wake does however appear to stay away from the real borderline kids (i.e. kids that may have trouble meeting NCAA minimums). Those are more the domain of UNC and Virginia Tech. If the academic situation is really bad maybe they end up at ECU.

The fact that Wake ends up with recruits that are more serious students is sometimes just as much about those recruits choosing Wake as opposed to those are the recruits that Wake targets. I think it does go both ways though.

Having said all that, I hear the same things as everyone else about Wake's admissions being tighter than it should be. I believe it. I think the AD has been fighting a losing battle for a number of years, and I somewhat blame the AD for not finding a way to exert more influence. But do I think that fans have blown this aspect out of proportion relative to its impact? Yes. Does Wake hold its athletes to the same standards as say Stanford? Absolutely not. Not even close.

 

[wfu22fan]

I still haven't seen convincing evidence that is the problem. I hear that excuse banded about a lot. The harder thing than admission at Wake is staying eligible. duke is an easier school than Wake for its entire population. Grade inflation elsewhere doesn't really exist at Wake.

Grades must be a little higher than they used to be. Dean's list and cum laude were 3.0 back in the day. I think the standard is 3.4 now.