Still one-dimensional.

Anyone can read this board. However, to post messages, you must register.
1401973
Navigator Level
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:06 am
Location: River Ridge

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by 1401973 »

To specifically answer your question I would say possibly 10 good teams since 1970.
1970 Pittman
72, 73 and 74 Ellender
79 Smith
80, 81 Gibson
97,98 Bowden
02 Scelfo
No honest “good” teams in 18 years. Including all the tenures of Mack Brown, Buddy Teevens, Greg Davis, Wally English, Bob Toledo, Curtis Johnson and Willie Fritz.

BACONWAVE
Navigator Level
Posts: 863
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:16 am

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by BACONWAVE »

Look I believe we are a better team under the current coaching staff....but at what point will we get over this supposed hump? Every game we lost was because we could not adjust to in game changes made by the other team. We seem to have no answer if one portion of our offense or defense is exposed. That...or we completely abandon a good thing that we have going. We will have two great drives then run up the middle 3 times in a row. Last night in OT we are throwing a fade to a RB in the end zone on like 2nd down? On defense any 3rd/4th and long might as well be a 2nd & 1. Some plays on defense we look like mannequins. How long has it been when we could say we played a complete game against an actual good team? After what happened against Navy....I just cannot be fine with "we are close to getting over the hump." We also shouldn't have to lean on the excuse of having a freshman QB, freshman blah blah here or freshman there. We should already have people here in those spots by now & if they can't hack it they should have seen it already by now. I do believe this may be the last year they will get a free pass b/c hoping we will get better doesn't cut it.
You're killin' me Smalls!!!

1401973
Navigator Level
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:06 am
Location: River Ridge

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by 1401973 »

1401973 wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 7:27 pm
To specifically answer your question I would say possibly 10 good teams since 1970.
1970 Pittman
72, 73 and 74 Ellender
79 Smith
80, 81 Gibson
97,98 Bowden
02 Scelfo
No honest “good” teams in 18 years.
No “good”teams in the tenures of Mack Brown, Buddy Teevens, Greg Davis, Wally English, Bob Toledo, Curtis Johnson and Willie Fritz.

User avatar
TUPF
Emerald Circle
Posts: 20799
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA & Berlin, MD

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by TUPF »

Not 74 Ellender. 5-6 losing the last 6 in stultifying fashion. I was a freshman and watched every game in Tulane Stadium.
Tulane Class of 1978 | NROTC Tulane - Submariner | From everywhere and nowhere

rjc
Breaker Level
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:38 pm

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by rjc »

Willie fritz has brought us to competitive football mostly due to the fact that Tulane relaxed some of the recruiting requirements. Had Toledo, Teevens, Davis , etc had these requirements to recruit under they would have done better than they did. For us to become a consistent winner the recruiting requirements would have to be eased even more. Will this happen? It is unrealistic to expect a couch to consistently beat programs that have a much more relaxed recruiting requirement. There was a time we looked into hiring Haubroug the Michigan coach , he was a up and coming young coach, do you'll think he could have won at Tulane when he is struggling at Michigan. Give WF the tools to recruit and he would build Tulane just like he did at all the other places he has been. rjc

User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 4148
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

rjc wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 8:35 pm
Willie fritz has brought us to competitive football mostly due to the fact that Tulane relaxed some of the recruiting requirements. Had Toledo, Teevens, Davis , etc had these requirements to recruit under they would have done better than they did. For us to become a consistent winner the recruiting requirements would have to be eased even more. Will this happen? It is unrealistic to expect a couch to consistently beat programs that have a much more relaxed recruiting requirement. There was a time we looked into hiring Haubroug the Michigan coach , he was a up and coming young coach, do you'll think he could have won at Tulane when he is struggling at Michigan. Give WF the tools to recruit and he would build Tulane just like he did at all the other places he has been. rjc
This is your consistent refrain. We accept NCAA minimum qualifiers. We have more athlete friendly majors now than ever. I don't have inside info, but maybe you do. What recruiting requirements still need to be relaxed? Are there specific things you think need to be changed? I'm genuinely curious.

Its obvious we are pretty close to 8-2 talent wise, but there are no doubt some holes that are very frustrating to still have in year 5.

User avatar
PeteRasche
Emerald Circle
Posts: 24347
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by PeteRasche »

The interesting thing is we've had talent at various positions under Fritz that, had they been here together, would probably have competed for an AAC title. Obviously any team can create an "all time all-star team", but just since the Fritz era we've had enough talent at various positions to win, which shows we can recruit AAC caliber guys everywhere. We just need to get it all together.

Heck, just give me Pratt (instead of the Banks/McMillan split season) and Hall (instead of Ruse) two years ago and we'd probably have been in the CCG. Or give me Nickerson and Keyes (and maybe Aruna) this year. (okay, maybe throw in Mooney just for when we need to ensure no drops)

User avatar
waverider
Emerald Circle
Posts: 23100
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm
Location: North Kenner

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by waverider »

PeteRasche wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:57 pm
The interesting thing is we've had talent at various positions under Fritz that, had they been here together, would probably have competed for an AAC title. Obviously any team can create an "all time all-star team", but just since the Fritz era we've had enough talent at various positions to win, which shows we can recruit AAC caliber guys everywhere. We just need to get it all together.

Heck, just give me Pratt (instead of the Banks/McMillan split season) and Hall (instead of Ruse) two years ago and we'd probably have been in the CCG. Or give me Nickerson and Keyes (and maybe Aruna) this year. (okay, maybe throw in Mooney just for when we need to ensure no drops)
Since we are building an All-recent team. Just give me Mooney (which you mentioned)and Nickerson and we win the Navy, SMU and Tulsa games this year.

I think Dyson is an NFL caliber DB next year. Maybe Hall too.
Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson

wavedom
Coach Level
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by wavedom »

PeteRasche wrote:
Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:57 pm
The interesting thing is we've had talent at various positions under Fritz that, had they been here together, would probably have competed for an AAC title. Obviously any team can create an "all time all-star team", but just since the Fritz era we've had enough talent at various positions to win, which shows we can recruit AAC caliber guys everywhere. We just need to get it all together.

Heck, just give me Pratt (instead of the Banks/McMillan split season) and Hall (instead of Ruse) two years ago and we'd probably have been in the CCG. Or give me Nickerson and Keyes (and maybe Aruna) this year. (okay, maybe throw in Mooney just for when we need to ensure no drops)
If it was only that easy. Clearly it's not. We lack talent and coaching.
We still aren't there!

rjc
Breaker Level
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:38 pm

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by rjc »

Some of you feel that we have the talent to go 8-2. No we don't, Wf has done a good job of building a decent defensive line and linebackers, but we don't have div 1 players in the secondary, we have real good running backs but lack div. 1 players at wide receivers, and barely div1 talent in the offensive line, a walk on field goal kicker, we started the season with a glaring hole at QB, and luckly we found a freshman that has preformed very well. We don't have the financing to be able to go get the very best assistent coach in the country. I have not agreed with some of the decisions WF has made , but i read a while back that he is the 3rd winnings active coach in the country , that he has been able to turn the prior places he was at with in 2 years. The question is why he has not done it at Tulane to our satisfaction. He actual has turn us from one of the worst programs in NCAA history into a decent program. To get us to were we all would like to go he would need more financing , more internal help, and for Tulane to want to get to were the few fans we have left want to be. rjc

wavedom
Coach Level
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by wavedom »

The reason he hasn't won here is the peter principle. He's never won at this level. His system worked at lower levels. it's not working here.
We still aren't there!

User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 4148
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

rjc wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:43 am
Some of you feel that we have the talent to go 8-2. No we don't, Wf has done a good job of building a decent defensive line and linebackers, but we don't have div 1 players in the secondary, we have real good running backs but lack div. 1 players at wide receivers, and barely div1 talent in the offensive line, a walk on field goal kicker, we started the season with a glaring hole at QB, and luckly we found a freshman that has preformed very well. We don't have the financing to be able to go get the very best assistent coach in the country. I have not agreed with some of the decisions WF has made , but i read a while back that he is the 3rd winnings active coach in the country , that he has been able to turn the prior places he was at with in 2 years. The question is why he has not done it at Tulane to our satisfaction. He actual has turn us from one of the worst programs in NCAA history into a decent program. To get us to were we all would like to go he would need more financing , more internal help, and for Tulane to want to get to were the few fans we have left want to be. rjc
It would be great if we had more money for assistants and recruiting staff but I think everybody outside of Alabama and Clemson feel that way. We are basically 3 dropped passes from 8-2 rjc so while I'm very frustrated by that it means we aren't that far off talent wise. Thats a very narrow margin.

The interesting thing about the holes you point out is that we didn't have holes in some of those places in previous seasons. Qb and OL have been ongoing issues and thats a space we have to be better at. Line play is critical. But we had 2 high quality wrs last year and have had multiple dbs playing in the nfl in the recent past. So while LB and DL and RB have become strengths, other areas have fallen off. K is difficult for even blue bloods to nail and Glover gas been mostly ok.

Idk rjc short of "we need more money" I think we have the tools to recruit well and move up in performance. Why we aren't executing on that and how that continues to impact the on field performance are the operative questions.

User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 4148
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

wavedom wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:54 am
The reason he hasn't won here is the peter principle. He's never won at this level. His system worked at lower levels. it's not working here.
Are you referring to the current defensive options? Because I think we've clearly moved away from his system on offense as evidenced by general production under Hall

tjtlja
President's Circle
Posts: 4465
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by tjtlja »

WF is very good coach and I want him to stay here as long as he wants. Tulane has been an impossible place to win at and he has us winning more than we are losing. We have a lot more talent than people think and the next recruiting class is very good when you look at the top 10 that comprise that group. We will have a serious upgrade at WR. Looking forward, we need to upgrade the secondary and the DL. Hopefully we do that with the next class also. And we need a change in philosophy on how we play the passing game. I love the 3-8 scheme that Tulsa and Arkansas predominately play. It is the future to slowing down these pass happy offenses. If Curtis comes back, we need to get rid of our DB coach at the very least. Our scheme on the back end and technique is terrible. Also need a WR coach in the worst way. Nevertheless, we are close. That is not good enough for many, but I will take it any day of the week compared to the 45 years I have witnessed Tulane football.

wavedom
Coach Level
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by wavedom »

I'm talking overall approach. There's no fire in the team as he believes it's just about the process. He's still too conservative on offense at times and needs to leave it all to Hall. He has hired poorly and stuck with them for far too long.
We still aren't there!

User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 4148
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

tjtlja wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:01 am
WF is very good coach and I want him to stay here as long as he wants. Tulane has been an impossible place to win at and he has us winning more than we are losing. We have a lot more talent than people think and the next recruiting class is very good when you look at the top 10 that comprise that group. We will have a serious upgrade at WR. Looking forward, we need to upgrade the secondary and the DL. Hopefully we do that with the next class also. And we need a change in philosophy on how we play the passing game. I love the 3-8 scheme that Tulsa and Arkansas predominately play. It is the future to slowing down these pass happy offenses. If Curtis comes back, we need to get rid of our DB coach at the very least. Our scheme on the back end and technique is terrible. Also need a WR coach in the worst way. Nevertheless, we are close. That is not good enough for many, but I will take it any day of the week compared to the 45 years I have witnessed Tulane football.
We should absolutely look at what Arkansas and Tulsa are doing. They are definitely the answer to what Ole Miss, Miss St, UCF etc are trying to do. If we make a change, I'd love to poach somebody with Barry Odom ties

tjtlja
President's Circle
Posts: 4465
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by tjtlja »

wavedom wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:02 am
I'm talking overall approach. There's no fire in the team as he believes it's just about the process. He's still too conservative on offense at times and needs to leave it all to Hall. He has hired poorly and stuck with them for far too long.
Don’t disagree with this at all.

User avatar
PeteRasche
Emerald Circle
Posts: 24347
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by PeteRasche »

Addressing one comment above, the reason his stem worked at lower levels but not FBS is there aren't the artificial money limitations put on various programs in lower levels the way the P5/G5 does in FBS.

If we got $50M per year for doing nothing but being in a league (looking at you, Vandy), we'd be immensely better.

User avatar
Poseidon
President's Circle
Posts: 3738
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by Poseidon »

tulaneoutlaw wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:56 am
rjc wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:43 am
Some of you feel that we have the talent to go 8-2. No we don't, Wf has done a good job of building a decent defensive line and linebackers, but we don't have div 1 players in the secondary, we have real good running backs but lack div. 1 players at wide receivers, and barely div1 talent in the offensive line, a walk on field goal kicker, we started the season with a glaring hole at QB, and luckly we found a freshman that has preformed very well. We don't have the financing to be able to go get the very best assistent coach in the country. I have not agreed with some of the decisions WF has made , but i read a while back that he is the 3rd winnings active coach in the country , that he has been able to turn the prior places he was at with in 2 years. The question is why he has not done it at Tulane to our satisfaction. He actual has turn us from one of the worst programs in NCAA history into a decent program. To get us to were we all would like to go he would need more financing , more internal help, and for Tulane to want to get to were the few fans we have left want to be. rjc
It would be great if we had more money for assistants and recruiting staff but I think everybody outside of Alabama and Clemson feel that way. We are basically 3 dropped passes from 8-2 rjc so while I'm very frustrated by that it means we aren't that far off talent wise. Thats a very narrow margin.

The interesting thing about the holes you point out is that we didn't have holes in some of those places in previous seasons. Qb and OL have been ongoing issues and thats a space we have to be better at. Line play is critical. But we had 2 high quality wrs last year and have had multiple dbs playing in the nfl in the recent past. So while LB and DL and RB have become strengths, other areas have fallen off. K is difficult for even blue bloods to nail and Glover gas been mostly ok.

Idk rjc short of "we need more money" I think we have the tools to recruit well and move up in performance. Why we aren't executing on that and how that continues to impact the on field performance are the operative questions.
Recruiting is and always has been down stream of winning. Your pretty much spot on Outlaw. Our recent recruiting classes have been every bit as strong on paper as these in conference we are losing to. They are products of better results; not great but better. As said by someone else CWF x and O schemes that got him to an AAC job are nearly effective at this level. Our slow rise has everything to do with him figuring this out and what to pivot to. CWF does run an A+ program outside Xs and Os.
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Dishonorable mention - Navy

wavedom
Coach Level
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by wavedom »

PeteRasche wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:24 pm
Addressing one comment above, the reason his stem worked at lower levels but not FBS is there aren't the artificial money limitations put on various programs in lower levels the way the P5/G5 does in FBS.

If we got $50M per year for doing nothing but being in a league (looking at you, Vandy), we'd be immensely better.

Even with that $50 million his system still wouldn't have worked especially with that step up in competition.
We still aren't there!

User avatar
PeteRasche
Emerald Circle
Posts: 24347
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by PeteRasche »

wavedom wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:42 pm
PeteRasche wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:24 pm
Addressing one comment above, the reason his stem worked at lower levels but not FBS is there aren't the artificial money limitations put on various programs in lower levels the way the P5/G5 does in FBS.

If we got $50M per year for doing nothing but being in a league (looking at you, Vandy), we'd be immensely better.

Even with that $50 million his system still wouldn't have worked especially with that step up in competition.
You can't prove that, the level of talent at every position would be better because recruiting would be immensely easier. And you can't argue others with similar systems haven't worked because no coach is the same. But my point was more why it did work everywhere he was prior as opposed to why it didn't work here.

wavedom
Coach Level
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by wavedom »

PeteRasche wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:27 pm
wavedom wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:42 pm
PeteRasche wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 2:24 pm
Addressing one comment above, the reason his stem worked at lower levels but not FBS is there aren't the artificial money limitations put on various programs in lower levels the way the P5/G5 does in FBS.

If we got $50M per year for doing nothing but being in a league (looking at you, Vandy), we'd be immensely better.

Even with that $50 million his system still wouldn't have worked especially with that step up in competition.
You can't prove that, the level of talent at every position would be better because recruiting would be immensely easier. And you can't argue others with similar systems haven't worked because no coach is the same. But my point was more why it did work everywhere he was prior as opposed to why it didn't work here.
You can't prove your point either. But his triple option would have failed to recruit at that level just as it did here.More importantly he would have been facing even better competition than he does here. Bottom line after all those years of success none of those schools had even sniffed him. His system was the reason why.
We still aren't there!

User avatar
CT Wave
Coach Level
Posts: 1838
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:05 pm
Location: Naples, FL

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by CT Wave »

tulaneoutlaw wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:56 am
rjc wrote:
Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:43 am
Some of you feel that we have the talent to go 8-2. No we don't, Wf has done a good job of building a decent defensive line and linebackers, but we don't have div 1 players in the secondary, we have real good running backs but lack div. 1 players at wide receivers, and barely div1 talent in the offensive line, a walk on field goal kicker, we started the season with a glaring hole at QB, and luckly we found a freshman that has preformed very well. We don't have the financing to be able to go get the very best assistent coach in the country. I have not agreed with some of the decisions WF has made , but i read a while back that he is the 3rd winnings active coach in the country , that he has been able to turn the prior places he was at with in 2 years. The question is why he has not done it at Tulane to our satisfaction. He actual has turn us from one of the worst programs in NCAA history into a decent program. To get us to were we all would like to go he would need more financing , more internal help, and for Tulane to want to get to were the few fans we have left want to be. rjc
It would be great if we had more money for assistants and recruiting staff but I think everybody outside of Alabama and Clemson feel that way. We are basically 3 dropped passes from 8-2 rjc so while I'm very frustrated by that it means we aren't that far off talent wise. Thats a very narrow margin.
Our record so far this year is 5-5. That is not going to change. Now does this team have the talent to be 8-2? Well, we lost 3 games on the last play of the game. That means we were very close to those 3 teams. We do not have the talent to guarantee those 3 wins. But we surely have the talent that could have won those 3. So yes, this team has the talent to be 8-2. Doesn't change the fact that we are 5-5.

I tend to agree with Pete that we have recently had players who can fill the holes on this year's team very well. No reason we cannot attract such players again.
"You're not here on scholarship to lose. I didn't recruit you to lose. Losing is abnormal; losing is unusual; losing is unacceptable. That's not what we're here for."
Bob Knight

User avatar
FW
Cornerstone
Posts: 31349
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:24 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by FW »

How do we not have the talent to go 8-2 when we're 5-5 and have lost 2 OT games and blew a 24-0 lead losing on the last play in the other?

GSx
Emerald Circle
Posts: 18586
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 12:18 am
Location: Beautiful Dutchtown

Re: Still one-dimensional.

Post by GSx »

Both Tulsa and SMU each outgained us by 200 yards; while we could have won either, and maybe should have, in the long haul you'll lose a lot more of -200 yard games than you will win. We also played a ridiculously easy ooc schedule.
A step forward was expected this year; instead, we took a step back. That's troubling.

Post Reply