I think we should win at least 6 games every season to be Bowl eligible. I'm not going to advocate for the firing of coaches if we meet that threshold.
I've watched or attended every game so I know just as well as you about how we've coached and played in individual games. Both the BC and ULM games were embarassing. No argument here, and our Coaches should take their share of blame for both. But conversely, they should be given their equivalent share of praise for the last two games where they did a good job.
That is what I'm saying. But I really don't see how waiting-and-seeing is at odds negates, dulls, or even challenges a #WellmanOut and #GroboOut perspective. Not yet, at least.
I'm nowhere near a member of the sunshine brigade, but I enjoy winning. I just hate losing, especially the way in which we've been losing in basketball and football. There's just no excuse for it.
Until our revenue sports start performing better and coaching staffs are held accountable for results on the field, then #WellmanOut.
Until 1) our football team brings 100% effort against Goliaths/good teams and wins games that we should win, 2) our head coach holds his own staff accountable performances on the field, and 3) we start seeing ACC-caliber recruiting and player development, then #GrobeOut.
(I left out LoboOut only because I don't think that LoboOut is a particularly controversial position.)
What exactly is their "fair share" of the blame? I think everyone on here has commented that we have been better as coaches and players for two weeks. Wasting half the season and completely demoralizing the team doesn't cut it. Coaches are paid to coach the whole season, and to work in the off season at preparing us for the first game. If you are advocating we pay coaches for wins and not for losses, then I can get behind that.
ETA: And for the record, I think we should have beaten BC and ULM, but BC isn't a gimme. We are talking about 1 win for sure that we didn't get. It's not the end of the world, but it may keep us out of a bowl. My issue is really not wins vs. losses, but the complete ineptitude displayed by the coaching staff leading into the season, and the stubbornness to correct it for four games. Also, I'm pretty sure Grobe thinks the silent practice gimmick and playing with more intensity turned things around. I'm very afraid that he doesn't realize that it was horrific coaching decisions being fixed that made the difference.
There will always be ~5 ACC teams on our schedule each year that we can beat. Sometimes we go 1-4 against them, sometimes we go 4-1 against them. No one will be an "easy win" for Wake Forest and wins against teams who have down years don't count less because those teams are down. This year it's BC, State, MD, Cuse, Duke. We're 2-1 so far against them. The ULM loss hurt a lot, and it's a gimme game we need to schedule each year and not lose, but we're back to that 5-6 win team we always were. We may have a few breakthrough years and we may have some 3-win seasons, but we're about what we are.
Basketball, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother story.
What exactly is their "fair share" of the blame? I think everyone on here has commented that we have been better as coaches and players for two weeks. Wasting half the season and completely demoralizing the team doesn't cut it. Coaches are paid to coach the whole season, and to work in the off season at preparing us for the first game. If you are advocating we pay coaches for wins and not for losses, then I can get behind that.
ETA: And for the record, I think we should have beaten BC and ULM, but BC isn't a gimme. We are talking about 1 win for sure that we didn't get. It's not the end of the world, but it may keep us out of a bowl. My issue is really not wins vs. losses, but the complete ineptitude displayed by the coaching staff leading into the season, and the stubbornness to correct it for four games. Also, I'm pretty sure Grobe thinks the silent practice gimmick and playing with more intensity turned things around. I'm very afraid that he doesn't realize that it was horrific coaching decisions being fixed that made the difference.
I agree the game against BC was no gimme, even if we weren't running the offense we were at the time, however, the margin of defeat was directly related to 2 fumbles on option plays. So, no it wasn't no gimme, but our offensive struggles lost that game for the most part. I don't think BC's defense is any better than Maryland's or State's. You're right though, the ULM game really stands out because I have no doubt their defense is worse than Maryland's and State's and if we were playcalling then like we are now, I think we win that game by 2 TD's at least.
I mean that the coaches and players share blame. Trying to be an option team was idiotic, but Grobe didn't make some of the awful decisions and pitches that Tanner made against BC. True, he shouldn't have ever been put in that situation, but his play is still on him.
with grobe 2-3 aren't gonna happen we've seen... but if he can do 1 well enough nobody will be complaining.
I am a skeptic too, though.
eta: we still run poorly, and so the line in all likelihood still isn't that good. also miami will be the first team with a real chance to prepare for our "new" offense.
I mean that the coaches and players share blame. Trying to be an option team was idiotic, but Grobe didn't make some of the awful decisions and pitches that Tanner made against BC. True, he shouldn't have ever been put in that situation, but his play is still on him.
For the record, we're still running "the Option" (tm). Ran it twice I believe vs. Maryland. Not sure how it affects the analysis on this thread.
I think Lobo throws it out there once or twice a game hoping somebody will break it open, he can claim victory, and we'll move on.
I think Lobo throws it out there once or twice a game hoping somebody will break it open, he can claim victory, and we'll move on.