For every Barry Alvarez you name there are 20 failed coaches with those numbers. Reasonable people understand this.
Interesting change at OSU
- Thread starter Al Bino
- Start date
Personally, I'd give any head coach here a minimum of 8 years to get his program running the way he wants it to.
I watched over 56 years of this "we can fire and then hire our way out of this mess" routine... Hasn't worked yet.
I say perhaps a different, more patient approach may clearly be what's needed...
I'm even a little more radical with that approach in saying the clock shouldn't start until year two of the new coaches being here (which I suppose give him actually 9 years) because the 1st year is usually spent cleaning up the last guys mess...
I understand the immediate gratification need and I also understand the "what about us" mantra when we see other teams turn things around but to that all I need to point to is our schedule.
We're basically playing 4-6 NFL practice squads a year (hence this years 7th toughest rated schedule in the country), it's not like we're trying to get a MAC team to 8 or 9 wins a year here...
I get angry when I see stories about programs and compare our success with, for example, Troy State or a MAC school. We're playing Ohio State and Michigan each year, and what powers are those schools playing?. It's always been apples and oranges to even make that example. I think I read a few years ago that our success in non-conference games has been about 75 percent.
Im saying give him 5+ years not because I’m his agent, but because unless he shows clear signs that he can’t coach, it’s dumb to burn everything to the ground. So far, he’s improved the defense to the past it’s been in the modern era, and he’s made tough staff decisions. He has passion, intensity, and the players have responded, particularly on the defensive side. They have a talent issue, that we will disagree on, but I think his recruiting is considerably better, at least on the defensive side, and I’m not paying attention to stars. I don’t know where the star rankings match up, but to a man this group of defensive guys he’s bringing in this class are longer, run faster, and appear to have traits that translate to the college level. But it takes time to build your program and get consistency. That’s why I’m willing to be patient. If he shows coach Wilson game management skills, and refuses to change, then I’d fire him. If he shows signs that he can’t lead young men, then I’d fire him. If he can’t adapt, then I’d fire him. But if it takes him some years to simply build the program up as he builds consistency, I can live with that. I think that Belichick is the standard as far as coaching goes, and it even took a while for him to figure things out. I’m willing to give Allen that kind of time and to be patient with him, unless he shows clear signs that he shouldn’t be a head coach.
I agree that this recruiting class is impressive given the disaster that occurred at the end of last season. The staff closed on some really good players.
I judge a coach off the trend of the program from where they took over to where it is now. No doubt last year was a big step back. Hopefully next year is two steps forward. But if we’re still trending down after 2-3 years I have no idea why people would want to give a coach 5 or more years. Just putting off the inevitable to me.
With this past year's talent deficiencies at key positions, lengthy injury list, and killer schedule we would not have won more than 5 with KW as head coach. So if 5 was a step back, it would have happened even with the former guy in place. I guess that wouldn't have been a step back in your mind ? Given KW's penchant for blowing at least one game every year where we had superior talent, my guess is that we would have been 4-8. That would have pissed me off because the talent deficiencies in those key spots (qb and o-line) were squarely on him
We would have beat Maryland for sure. Maybe Purdue. I’m fine getting rid of Wilson if you have a better replacement. But so far Allen has been far from that. Of course it can change.
No to both of those wins. Not under Wilson on the road. And a likely loss at Virginia. Maybe if the great qb guru had been able to recruit a quality player at that position we would have won all 3. The guy had hit his ceiling. He was an OC with little of the mentality or qualifications or character needed to be a successful head coach. 6-6 with a much softer schedule was his limit.
I think there’s lot of truth to what you’re both saying. Were the Maryland and Purdue losses disappointing, and unacceptable to an extent? Yes. Would CKW have done better? Probably not. At the end of the day it comes down to personel and players winning games. Peoole can focus on the past 5 years all they want, but I saw a Purdue team with a Big Ten personel. Unfortunately my girlfriend is an alum so I saw them play against Louisville/Ohio and I’m not shocked that they beat us, and I don’t see CKW winning that game. They had powerful lines and depth. People don’t understand how bad Hazel was at instilling discipline/running a serious program. That was their only roadblock. The players they had the whole time looked like what you want Big Ten lineman to look like. Having any coach other than Hazel was going to set them apart, because they had okay personel along the lines, and I noted early in the season that the Purdue game was absolutely not going to be a pushover like it has been in recent memory. Against Louisville, they did not look like an outmatched team, and for the first time in a few years they flat out dominated a Mac team, like any Big Ten team should. They looked better against Ohio (a team that made a bowl) than we did against Ball State any of the three times we played them in Wilson’s era including 2016 (in which they didn’t make a bowl in 16’). So I don’t see the Purdue result being any different with Wilson, and the team likely goes 5-7 at best with him.
The nature of college football is that you can’t just cut guys, and you have to deal with the roster you have. If Allen continues this recruiting trend, he probably has an 8-9 win team in 5 years, and that’s worthy of keeping him around. A lot of people mentioned Bill Mallory, and yes, he was given time and it paid off. He also had a vision and passion. He had something that IU could build on. Hep was the same. Had something that IU was going to build on until his passing. I think that Allen will have that kind of passion and vision moving forward. But this ain’t the NFL. There’s no free agency. When you have to build your roster from scratch, it could take time. I think that Brohm again, inherited a good roster that flat out didn’t have any coaching or leadership. You look at the height, weight, and speed of the personel at Purdue, and you see players. I don’t think that IU matched up at all on either line, and that’s going to take time to fix, which is why I can be patient with Allen. There are even times in the pros when you have to cut really good players, because they just don’t get it or add value to your roster, but not so in college, so it takes time. Given the fact that it takes time to develop players, I’m perfectly fine with giving him years
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. There is nothing to support your implication that the program was trending up when Wilson was let go. WIlson's 2016 IU offense had dropped off considerably from previous seasons and was mediocre at best. Recruiting was in a decline as well. The only truly notable feature of the 2016 team was the dramatic defensive improvement and I don't have to remind you who was responsible for that.
We went from 6-6 with a HC in his sixth season to 5-7 with a first year HC. "A big step back"? Come on, dude.
I wouldn't give anyone 8 years if they had losing seasons for the whole 8 years. Now, if you sprinkle in a couple of winning seasons in there, then sure. But they have to have some signs of success and improvement in the first 5, if not, I have no issues in letting them go after 5.
That being said, any talk of giving Allen a year or two only, is just asinine (like anyone calling to fire him now). Plus, I really have zero doubt that he will succeed here, and 5 years from now there will be 3-4 winning seasons under his belt, and this whole point will be moot.
We went to back to back bowl games for the first time in decades and were returning 16 starters. That’s not trending up? This was supposed to be the 7-5 or 8-4 year. And ultimately we laid an egg.
Look, I’m not saying Allen can’t turn it around. But the trend is not our friend right now.
Wilson made a second bowl game on the strength of home wins over a weak Maryland team, the worst Michigan State team in the Dantonio era, and a horrible Purdue team. He laid an egg at home to a marginal Wake Forest, and couldn't beat an average Nebraska at home or a mediocre Northwestern. He didn't have to deal with Wisconsin at all. Wilson's last year is the year we should have had 7 or 8 wins, and he had to squeak out a home win against wretched Purdue just to get us to .500.
Allen had to play much improved MSU at MSU, a legitimate Purdue squad at W. Laffy that beat Arizona in a bowl game, and Maryland at Maryland. He got Wisconsin from the west as a bonus. That's a hell of a swing in schedule difficulty. His team had more significant injuries than any IU team in my lifetime.
In addition, Wilson left a depleted roster with no experienced linemen and no good option at qb. Wilson is 3-9 or 4-8 at best with Allen's situation this year.
Bottom line, Tom Allen is a huge upgrade for the long-term success of IU football. KW is where he belongs - doing offensive Xs and Os for a top-flight program where he doesn't have to manage players or deal with any other aspect of the game.
...with a big assist from Darrell Hazell.
... and at least 11 starters missed some, most or all of the season due to injury.
https://www.indystar.com/story/spor...aking-their-toll-battered-hoosiers/813091001/
I agree. The roster was a little jacked up, in part due to recruiting at the tail end of Wilson’s tenure. He didn’t know what he was looking for on the o-line,.. there was no direction. Same at QB. I was talking to a coach who said one of the biggest things is having a recruiting plan. Knowing what you are looking for. So how do you have a QB like Diamont and then Sudfeld on the same roster? You have a read option guy, and a dropback Guy, and no other viable backup to develop. That led to throwing Lagow in, who simply never developed the skills in juco to compete at this level. Those are recruiting issues that Allen has to account for. Allen is at least consistent with what he wants at each position. He has d ends who mostly all look the same. Tight ends who look the same. And most importantly quarterbacks with the same skill set, so if one gets hurt, another can come in and continue things. They’re looking for 6’2” guys who can run at QB, because we have three on the roster. You don’t go from 6’6” Sudfeld and Lagow, to 5’11” read option Diamont anymore. But to build roster consistency, and depth with the kind of guys you want can take years.
Depleted roster? Returning 16 starters including your QB? That’s just false. 90% of programs would love to return 16 starters.
It’s fair to criticize Wilson. He certainly wasn’t a world beater as a HC. But he was better than what we had for several years before him.
My biggest disagreement is the praise for Allen. How do we know he’s an upgrade? We don’t. Because he has no track record. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. But to claim you know he’s better is just blind fan optimism at its finest.
Look at what Brohm did with Hazell’s awful roster. That should be the blueprint going forward. Go get the next Jeff Brohm. Sooner rather than later.
How do you know we don't already have him? Or better?
You're all over the place. In the post just before the one I quoted, you concede that Allen could be an upgrade but we don't know because he doesn't have a track record yet. Fair point. But a minute later you seem ready to throw in the towel on the guy. You can't have it both ways.
I’d throw in the towel because I believe the odds are strongly against him succeeding. And I think we can find a coach with a higher probability of success. It’s that simple. Doesn’t mean I think Allen has a 0% chance of success.
You're all over the place because you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are like an irrational pre-teen girl who thinks that whatever she wants can and should be delivered right now. Who knows where Purdue goes next year. Brohm didn't exactly kill it this year. They were 6-6 and didn't have to play Ohio State, Penn State, or Michigan State. Who's to say Allen wouldn't have done equally well. One thing for sure, they had 5 offensive linemen better than any of ours and two QBs better than anyone on our roster. That's on Wilson. Brohm didn't demonstrate in any way that he could have taken our schedule and our roster and won any more games than Allen did. But you aren't interested in context. You never liked the Allen hire and so you intend to blame him for any shortcomings.
As far as returning 16 starters, it was pointed out to you earlier how many of those starters were lost for all or most of the season. But that doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it. As for returning our QB, the guy was awful. Bad players returning doesn't equal good results.
And you thinking that we could find a coach with a higher probability of success doesn't make it so, it just exposes your ignorance about coaching.
Last edited:
By your logic, Wilson should have been fired after his first year. His predecessor was one dropped pass from a bowl game the year he was fired and Wilson promptly turned that cusp of success into a 1-11 season the next year. It took him four year to get to five wins and five years to make a bowl. Yet the guy who followed him is a certain failure because he won 1 less game his first year against a much more challenging schedule.
Admit it, you just don't like Tom Allen and you hope he fails so he can be replaced. I don't know if he rejected your sister in high school or what the hell he did to you but you can't even mask your personal dislike with the thinnest logic. Just go find another team to root for the next 5 years because TA isn't going anywhere.
Our recruiting was much better with Allen. I have to wonder how much it would have suffered with Wilson as coach, considering the Outside The Lines report about player abuse by Wilson.
I don’t even know if the OTL report was the worst part of it. It honestly seemed as if Wilson had no recruiting strategy. He had a strategy if you recall when he first got in. He always said “the first word in Big Ten is Big.” So he recruited longer more physical bodies. He also emphasized in state recruiting. He knew what he wanted from a height, weight speed perspective, and that’s why the team improved quickly. As time went on however, it seemed as if there was no clear strategy. Although the classes improved star wise, it didn’t seem like there was a plan for the actual players. For example, we had always gone with shorter (quicker) linebackers like Oliver and Clyde newton, but then he switched and got a kid like Omari stringer who didn’t fit the defense.
On the flip side, CTA looks like he knows what he wants at each position. He knows what the players height, weight, speed should be, and what his traits should be that fit into the defensive scheme. That’s why all of the DE’s in this class are similar. All of the Safeties are similar. The TE ivy, is an Ian Thomas 2.0. All of the QB’s he’s recruited are similar (Dual threats). There’s actually a plan with Allen. I couldn’t figure out what Wilsons recruiting strategy was his past couple of classes, and it showed on the field.
I also didn't understand his disinterest in recruiting any kickers. It didn't seem too much of a commitment to have one scholarship devoted to a kicker each four years. Frankly he was lucky in having Oakes on campus. I'm not sure that would always have been the case.
I guess we will never know. Did it cost IU the Bowling Green game in 14’ not having a kicked? If I recall, Del Grosso was the kicker, and we quickly found out that he couldn’t kick. It was only when Del Grosso got hurt at some point in 2014 that Oaks even took over. No one knew that he could kick prior to Del Grosso getting healthy, so Wilson did somewhat “luck out.” I think that enough kickers get overlooked in recruiting however that you can survive with preferred walk ons at that position if you’re an excellent talent evaluator. Same at punter. But could Gideon if I recall was very solid before he got replaced, and he was also a walk on type. Same with Toth who ended up being solid. So Wilson did show continued success with walk ons in the kicking game. And if any of them had hit a could streak, he could’ve pulled the scholarship, instead of having to keep a guy on scholarship who couldn’t produce. For example, it would’ve been a disaster had Del Grosso been a scholarship player out of high school. Then you would’ve had to have kept a guy on scholarship who had lost his confidence as a kicker, which would’ve biases Wilson towards not playing Oaks, which would’ve been bad for the team. Because once you give a kicker or punter a scholarship, you have to play them through hell and highwater, or people (alumni/donors) get kinda of mad that you’re not using a guy who’s benefiting from their scholarship money. Wilson often made decisions based on that reality.
Fields and Lagow were also in an all star game
Simmie was in one also. Richard was in two and did well. There is a lot that goes on concerning the all star games and the combine, that is not owned by the NFL, and the pro day probably does as much as anything to get you noticed by the scouts.
I'm glad they were also in all-star games. Maybe those were not televised, so I wasn't aware of them. Was that one that Richard played in the Texas game? I have seen that one the last couple of years.
