Jump to content
Posted

We get it, and we agree with you. Those who aren't crazy about the coaching job Weis has done do not need to hear that our offense is fantastic. We know this, we agree with you, and Weis can absolutely receive credit for building a great offense.

Β 

But the problem is, that's only half of the equation. Weis has gotten it done with the offense, but he's a head coach now -- not just an offensive coordinator -- and the defensive side of the ball is a reflection of him as head coach, too. In the real world, getting the job 50% right isn't good enough to hang onto your job -- why should it be so in college football?

Β 

We love Weis' offense, we love the personnel, and we love the way they're playing (minus the holding penalties). We're not taking credit away from Weis in building a great offense at Notre Dame. But when the defense is on the field, and the camera switches to Charlie on the sideline leaning against the Gatorade table like his job is done for the moment -- that shows me that he's not thinking like a head coach, but rather like an offensive coordinator.

Β 

This is our hesitation. This is why we think there's a problem. This is why we're not sure that Charlie Weis is the right man for the job. So please stop pointing to the offense and asking the question "doesn't he deserve credit for building THAT?" Yes, he does, and we give it to him rightly for it. But that's only half of his responsibilities -- and the other half is really, really bad.

  • Replies 54
  • Views 6.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Featured Replies

+1............

We get it, and we agree with you. Those who aren't crazy about the coaching job Weis has done do not need to hear that our offense is fantastic. We know this, we agree with you, and Weis can absolutely receive credit for building a great offense.

Β 

But the problem is, that's only half of the equation. Weis has gotten it done with the offense, but he's a head coach now -- not just an offensive coordinator -- and the defensive side of the ball is a reflection of him as head coach, too. In the real world, getting the job 50% right isn't good enough to hang onto your job -- why should it be so in college football?

Β 

We love Weis' offense, we love the personnel, and we love the way they're playing (minus the holding penalties). We're not taking credit away from Weis in building a great offense at Notre Dame. But when the defense is on the field, and the camera switches to Charlie on the sideline leaning against the Gatorade table like his job is done for the moment -- that shows me that he's not thinking like a head coach, but rather like an offensive coordinator.

Β 

This is our hesitation. This is why we think there's a problem. This is why we're not sure that Charlie Weis is the right man for the job. So please stop pointing to the offense and asking the question "doesn't he deserve credit for building THAT?" Yes, he does, and we give it to him rightly for it. But that's only half of his responsibilities -- and the other half is really, really bad.

Β 

I agree with this all. But hypothetically speaking, if the defense straights out, are you going to think Weis is the guy for the job?

In the Nevada game it was mentioned that CW has turned the defense completely over to Tenuta and Brown, and that he would be focused on the Offense. They also mentioned that we would see him a lot with his back to the game when the defense is out on the field, instructing the offense and working with them to correct any issues or get things set up for the next drive. Yes, the head coach is ultimately responsible for the team and the game, but there are assistant coaches and defensive coaches there for a reason. It would be impossible for CW, or any coash for that matter, to do everything. I know we expect that, but that doesn't help things. His attention is the offense this year, and he is relying on his other coasches to report back to him on the good, bad and the ugly. Think of it like a company, and CW is the CEO. He is ultimately responsible for the company and all of the branches, but he can't manage all of the other branches to make sure his company is 100% efficient. There is a branch manager at each loacation that is responsible for that branches performance, and reports back to the CEO each week about how the branch is doing. If the CEO has his nose in every branch, all of the time, then the internal structure of the company will fail, you will have a lot of mediocre branches, and you have a lot of pissed off Branch Managers because they have a CEO that micromanages everything they do. Just my $.02.

I agree with this all. But hypothetically speaking, if the defense straights out, are you going to think Weis is the guy for the job?

Thats the idea, yes

Just make it easier for argument sake, and come out an say "No matter what CW does, I have decided to hate him"....

Aren't we just in to three games of the 100% Tenuta defense? Last year was a shared defensive scheme (Brown/Tenuta). Weis apparently did not like what the defense did last year, so he did something about it by handing the reigns to the experienced Tenuta (a guy that EVERYONE here lauded as a brilliant move). Now, three games in to the Tenuta playcalling defensive mediocrity, we are suggesting that Weis is a failing because he hasn't addressed the defense? Weis waited too long to sack Latina, to be sure, but upending the whole defensive coaching heirarchy after three games seems too reactionary. Weis has little choice but to allow Tenuta and Brown to try and fix it. What else can he do? He's no defensive mind. Fire Tenuta after three games? Give it back to Brown and hope his schematics are better than they were last year? What defensive guru can be hired away from a current job mid-year? You're Weis--what would you do?

Understood Katz. The question now becomes, why is the D bad? I would hypothesize that the D is weak because the D-line, namely the DT's, don't require a double team. This allows all decent to good offensive lines to single each man on the line, and have an extra blocker or two to pick up a blitz. The decision for Tenuta is then either rush 3/4 and let the qb have all day to throw, or blitz and leave the corners on islands. It's pretty much a no-win situation.

Β 

As to why the dt's aren't good enough, I tend to think it is a time thing. Virtually no dt's are ready to see the field, esp. as the #1 dt, until their 4th year. Some can make it in their 3rd, but those kids are rare. This delay is the reason many teams have juco's on the depth chart for dt.

Β 

Putting out a hypothetical: let's assume Weis was allowed to take Juco's and grabbed a pair of guys like Cody at Bama. That would help the defense immensely, would it not? I would argue that would turn our D from bad to quite good. Would Weis then be the right man for the job? Is his whole tenure as ND HC hinging on whether our dt's develop?

Β 

Sorry to pour salt in a wound, but can you guys imagine where our defense would be if we had landed Gerald McCoy, Justin Trattou, and Omar Hunter? Excuse me, I seem to have something in my eye. Look away.

Just make it easier for argument sake, and come out an say "No matter what CW does, I have decided to hate him"....

I know (hope) you're being sarcastic, but I really don't think anyone is going to hate Charlie if he was winning. Everyone can agree that Charlie is a great guy, despite his perceived cockiness, who everyone wants to succeed here at ND. Im sure everyone thought Gerry Faust was a great guy, but he didn't win. We could honestly have a monkey in a tuxedo or even, gasp, URBAN MEYER SPAWN OF SATAN AND THE PRODIGAL SON OF NOTRE DAME coaching and it wouldn't bother me in the least as long as we were winning.

We get it, and we agree with you. Those who aren't crazy about the coaching job Weis has done do not need to hear that our offense is fantastic. We know this, we agree with you, and Weis can absolutely receive credit for building a great offense.

Β 

But the problem is, that's only half of the equation. Weis has gotten it done with the offense, but he's a head coach now -- not just an offensive coordinator -- and the defensive side of the ball is a reflection of him as head coach, too. In the real world, getting the job 50% right isn't good enough to hang onto your job -- why should it be so in college football?

Β 

We love Weis' offense, we love the personnel, and we love the way they're playing (minus the holding penalties). We're not taking credit away from Weis in building a great offense at Notre Dame. But when the defense is on the field, and the camera switches to Charlie on the sideline leaning against the Gatorade table like his job is done for the moment -- that shows me that he's not thinking like a head coach, but rather like an offensive coordinator.

Β 

This is our hesitation. This is why we think there's a problem. This is why we're not sure that Charlie Weis is the right man for the job. So please stop pointing to the offense and asking the question "doesn't he deserve credit for building THAT?" Yes, he does, and we give it to him rightly for it. But that's only half of his responsibilities -- and the other half is really, really bad.

Β 

Yeah and this doesn't even begin to start to talk about the awful special teams play. Which just as much cost us the Michigan game as the d did. 2/3 of the team is bad - we are only in games because the offense is truly great - which is again why I think Charlie is just a great o-cord.

  • Author
Just make it easier for argument sake, and come out an say "No matter what CW does, I have decided to hate him"....

Β 

What exactly in my post made you post such a response?

Β 

The offense is good. If the defense is good, then we'll win games. If the defense continues to play like it has, we'll lose games, and Weis will be fired.

Β 

I didn't say anything in the slightest that could make you respond the way you did. Did you even read what I wrote?

  • Author
Understood Katz. The question now becomes, why is the D bad? I would hypothesize that the D is weak because the D-line, namely the DT's, don't require a double team. This allows all decent to good offensive lines to single each man on the line, and have an extra blocker or two to pick up a blitz. The decision for Tenuta is then either rush 3/4 and let the qb have all day to throw, or blitz and leave the corners on islands. It's pretty much a no-win situation.

Β 

As to why the dt's aren't good enough, I tend to think it is a time thing. Virtually no dt's are ready to see the field, esp. as the #1 dt, until their 4th year. Some can make it in their 3rd, but those kids are rare. This delay is the reason many teams have juco's on the depth chart for dt.

Β 

Putting out a hypothetical: let's assume Weis was allowed to take Juco's and grabbed a pair of guys like Cody at Bama. That would help the defense immensely, would it not? I would argue that would turn our D from bad to quite good. Would Weis then be the right man for the job? Is his whole tenure as ND HC hinging on whether our dt's develop?

Β 

I don't know why the DTs are playing bad, or why the defense as a whole has looked has porous as it has. Sure, getting someone like Cody will help, but not all teams rely on JUCOs, and year after year have good run defense -- BC, Wisconsin, and some other mid-level tier programs come to mind.

Β 

And yes, I think that his tenure as a coach directly relates to how the defense performs, because that will ultimately be what will cost us wins. There have been plenty of defensive-minded coaches who've fielded strong teams on the opposite side of their bread and butter. Pete Carroll (defensive guy, has some great offensive teams at USC), Urban Meyer (offensive guy with terrific defensive squads) and Nick Saban (defensive background with pretty good offenses the past two years) come immediately to mind, but there are more.

What exactly in my post made you post such a response?

Β 

The offense is good. If the defense is good, then we'll win games. If the defense continues to play like it has, we'll lose games, and Weis will be fired.

Β 

I didn't say anything in the slightest that could make you respond the way you did. Did you even read what I wrote?

Β 

Β 

Your post says what you are trying to deny. You just said "The offense is good. If the defense is good, then we'll win games." The point was that no matter what, you won't be convinced that Weis is the guy even though you say your only issue with Weis is the defense. Its really that simple.

Β 

For me, I believe the jury is still out and people need to let the season play out. If the defense plays better, ND will definitely win a bunch of games and we are going to be a pretty darn good football team.

  • Author
Your post says what you are trying to deny. You just said "The offense is good. If the defense is good, then we'll win games." The point was that no matter what, you won't be convinced that Weis is the guy even though you say your only issue with Weis is the defense. Its really that simple.

Β 

Actually, no - I don't say that I won't be convinced Weis can be the guy. What my post says is that the offense is good and Charlie deserves credit, but if the defense continues to stink than he deserves the blame. And thus far the defense has been bad, and therefore, he should take the heat because of it.

Β 

Again, I'm baffled that anyone would take my post and say "There's no way Weis can convince me he's the guy." If he gets the defense playing well, and he eliminates the mental errors that are plaguing this team, I'm fine with him coaching ND. If the defense continues to let inferior teams hang in, then that should count against him -- even if his offense is very, very good.

Β 

Please tell me where in my post I say that no matter what happens, Weis isn't the guy for ND. Show me.

Β 

He's built a great offense, and if the defense can match the offensive production and help us win more games, then Weis should stay. But at the end of the season, if our defense is still as bad as it's been, we will have a very large problem, and that problem will and should fall squarely on Weis' shoulders.

Edited by Katzenboyer

Actually, no - I don't say that I won't be convinced Weis can be the guy. What my post says is that the offense is good and Charlie deserves credit, but if the defense continues to stink than he deserves the blame. And thus far the defense has been bad, and therefore, he should take the heat because of it.

Β 

Again, I'm baffled that anyone would take my post and say "There's no way Weis can convince me he's the guy." If he gets the defense playing well, and he eliminates the mental errors that are plaguing this team, I'm fine with him coaching ND. If the defense continues to let inferior teams hang in, then that should count against him -- even if his offense is very, very good.

Β 

Please tell me where in my post I say that no matter what happens, Weis isn't the guy for ND. Show me.

Β 

He's built a great offense, and if the defense can match the offensive production and help us win more games, then Weis should stay. But at the end of the season, if our defense is still as bad as it's been, we will have a very large problem, and that problem will and should fall squarely on Weis' shoulders.

Β 

That is more like it. I just didn't think you sounded too clear. Saying, "Our offense is good. If our defense is good, we win games." That was a blank statement. I am on the fence. I am thinking "If this defense gets fixed up, this will be a pretty good team and Weis is a pretty good coach." And saying "then Weis should stay." doesn't mean anything either. OF COURSE, if the guy wins 10 games, he should stay.

Β 

I am just curious. How would you fill in this sentence? "If [ X ] happens, then I will know Weis is the guy that will make this team elite."

Whatever side of the fence you fall on, I find this argument fascinating. I just don't understand the logic "Charlie only coaches the offense so what the defense does is not his fault--he turned it over to Tenuta".

Β 

If the war in Afghanistan goes bad it's not on Obama because he has a secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs who are responsible for that operation. You can't possibly blame defense strategy on the President for pete's sake!

Β 

If a sales manager has 3 underperforming years in a row it's not his fault because there are sales reps under him that are responsible for bringing in the sales for each territory. What can he really do about it? He shouldn't be accountable for underperforming territories I mean that's ludicrous!

Β 

I'd like to know and be clear once and for all, for what is the head football coach accountable? Because it seems what I am hearing is that after 5 years a coach should only be accountable for the side of the ball that is his specialty (oh, and recruiting too). If he scores 35 points a game and goes 8-4 then how can anyone possibly dream of blaming the head football coach when all he does is coordinate the offense?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Join Domer Domain

πŸ’š Follow topics + members
πŸ’¬ Post in the community
🚫 See fewer ads

What's Trending