Moderators: paulpressey25, MickeyDavis, humanrefutation
humanrefutation wrote:How bad does it need to get this season for UW to swallow Fick's buyout? Does he survive with 4 wins?
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."
I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
trwi7 wrote:humanrefutation wrote:How bad does it need to get this season for UW to swallow Fick's buyout? Does he survive with 4 wins?
I assume they'll give him next year. Our toughest games next year will be Notre Dame at Lambeau, @ Penn State and @ Iowa. If he can't come away with at least 8 wins with that schedule, you have to think they fire him at that point.
Kerb Hohl wrote:I am not tied to him as a coach, but it's just such a weird situation that I cannot accurately judge him with reasonable expectations because he's either not had his starting QB or he's played against competition that we'd never beat anyways even in pre-NIL/portal times.
The only thing thing I can say negatively is the defense against Iowa/Nebraska/Minnesota last year and maybe Longo...but I even think that's hard to judge without a QB.
MVP2110 wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:I am not tied to him as a coach, but it's just such a weird situation that I cannot accurately judge him with reasonable expectations because he's either not had his starting QB or he's played against competition that we'd never beat anyways even in pre-NIL/portal times.
The only thing thing I can say negatively is the defense against Iowa/Nebraska/Minnesota last year and maybe Longo...but I even think that's hard to judge without a QB.
The games against Iowa, Washington, Illinois, Indiana, & Minnesota this year are much more important than Bama, Michigan, Ohio St, or Penn St. You can't get embarrassed against Iowa & Minnesota again this year. If that happens then I do think Fickell could be in trouble
ReasonablySober wrote:
MVP2110 wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:I am not tied to him as a coach, but it's just such a weird situation that I cannot accurately judge him with reasonable expectations because he's either not had his starting QB or he's played against competition that we'd never beat anyways even in pre-NIL/portal times.
The only thing thing I can say negatively is the defense against Iowa/Nebraska/Minnesota last year and maybe Longo...but I even think that's hard to judge without a QB.
The games against Iowa, Washington, Illinois, Indiana, & Minnesota this year are much more important than Bama, Michigan, Ohio St, or Penn St. You can't get embarrassed against Iowa & Minnesota again this year. If that happens then I do think Fickell could be in trouble
DingleJerry wrote:instead they did it two years too later after having killed the OL pipeline that could've made it work, so now they're behind the 8 ball on it.
Kerb Hohl wrote:DingleJerry wrote:instead they did it two years too later after having killed the OL pipeline that could've made it work, so now they're behind the 8 ball on it.
How did they kill the OL pipeline? I don't think Fickell is great at this moment, but I think there's a misconception out there about this right now.
DingleJerry wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:DingleJerry wrote:instead they did it two years too later after having killed the OL pipeline that could've made it work, so now they're behind the 8 ball on it.
How did they kill the OL pipeline? I don't think Fickell is great at this moment, but I think there's a misconception out there about this right now.
just in general you went away from power football for two years with the development that goes with it in order to go to spread smaller OL. And now two years later you're trying to shift back, so now you don't have the right guys to do it because you focused a different type the last two years.
If you'd have gone to this style of O (like a MI power O but out of shotgun) right away, you could've kept the guys you already had, generally kept doing things the same as you'd been for years and what made UW what it was. Instead you had two years with makeshift lines as you transitioned, and now you're transitioning again.
Kerb Hohl wrote:DingleJerry wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:
How did they kill the OL pipeline? I don't think Fickell is great at this moment, but I think there's a misconception out there about this right now.
just in general you went away from power football for two years with the development that goes with it in order to go to spread smaller OL. And now two years later you're trying to shift back, so now you don't have the right guys to do it because you focused a different type the last two years.
If you'd have gone to this style of O (like a MI power O but out of shotgun) right away, you could've kept the guys you already had, generally kept doing things the same as you'd been for years and what made UW what it was. Instead you had two years with makeshift lines as you transitioned, and now you're transitioning again.
The one thing I'm not sure about is why Rucci and Wedig left. Logically, it seems like Rucci might've gone to PSU for legacy purposes. Wedig might've left so he had more of an opportunity to play? Regardless, Wedig is done with college football and Rucci is kind of a lost cause.
The guys behind left by Chryst were forgettable other than those guys + Mahlmann/Brunner and Nelson who is also now gone. I think losing the other 2 may have been "free transfer + NIL" related. The interior line kinda sucked and it was patched by OK transfers.
They have been losing most of the top OL recruits in-state since the final ~2 Chryst years, coincidentally when NIL/wide open transfers got going.Spoiler:
;tldr - I think the fact that guys started leaving in the Chryst era is telling me that the upperclassman issue is a money issue. We lost 2 guys to 2 helmet schools in 2022 even when we still said, "we'll pound the rock." Fickell has actually found some good, young OL elsewhere. The issue is that one of them has a torn ACL and starting RS-freshmen is bad in this era. If somebody else takes over the program, they are likely inheriting 3-4 good OL for 2027...if they can/want to keep them.
DingleJerry wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:DingleJerry wrote:
just in general you went away from power football for two years with the development that goes with it in order to go to spread smaller OL. And now two years later you're trying to shift back, so now you don't have the right guys to do it because you focused a different type the last two years.
If you'd have gone to this style of O (like a MI power O but out of shotgun) right away, you could've kept the guys you already had, generally kept doing things the same as you'd been for years and what made UW what it was. Instead you had two years with makeshift lines as you transitioned, and now you're transitioning again.
The one thing I'm not sure about is why Rucci and Wedig left. Logically, it seems like Rucci might've gone to PSU for legacy purposes. Wedig might've left so he had more of an opportunity to play? Regardless, Wedig is done with college football and Rucci is kind of a lost cause.
The guys behind left by Chryst were forgettable other than those guys + Mahlmann/Brunner and Nelson who is also now gone. I think losing the other 2 may have been "free transfer + NIL" related. The interior line kinda sucked and it was patched by OK transfers.
They have been losing most of the top OL recruits in-state since the final ~2 Chryst years, coincidentally when NIL/wide open transfers got going.Spoiler:
;tldr - I think the fact that guys started leaving in the Chryst era is telling me that the upperclassman issue is a money issue. We lost 2 guys to 2 helmet schools in 2022 even when we still said, "we'll pound the rock." Fickell has actually found some good, young OL elsewhere. The issue is that one of them has a torn ACL and starting RS-freshmen is bad in this era. If somebody else takes over the program, they are likely inheriting 3-4 good OL for 2027...if they can/want to keep them.
Yea it was trending down for Chryst when compared to the prevous 10 years of ridiculousness. That was one of the wtf of how Chryst's Os struggled, how did they mess up that development on the OL
Anyway, thats a whole different thing. Long story short, they're trying to play a power running type thing now with guys who were brought in to play spread. Or, with freshman/transfers brought in just this year. Result is they jus can't run the ball right now. Couple years of planning/training/development at this style and there's no reason it can't work not unlike Mich or even ILL is doing now. Hindsight, that's probably the offensive modernization that should've happened right away rather than the mass change. what's that saying, baby out with the bathwater or whatever
DingleJerry wrote:ETA: jjust noticed the spoiler. I wasn't talking about in state stuff at all like a recruiting 'pipeline'. Just meant general OL system/plan that consistently had them as a top OL school, etc.
Kerb Hohl wrote:DingleJerry wrote:ETA: jjust noticed the spoiler. I wasn't talking about in state stuff at all like a recruiting 'pipeline'. Just meant general OL system/plan that consistently had them as a top OL school, etc.
To me this is all irrelevant. The system is now completely different. We can't just say, "hey, we run the ball a lot" if Indiana or Notre Dame offers a guy we want $100k more to start at guard or some team poaches one of our good depth pieces to be a starter.
That's one thing that is annoying me is the talking heads saying, "hey, just do what we did "1992-2019" when it simply just is not possible anymore.
DingleJerry wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:DingleJerry wrote:ETA: jjust noticed the spoiler. I wasn't talking about in state stuff at all like a recruiting 'pipeline'. Just meant general OL system/plan that consistently had them as a top OL school, etc.
To me this is all irrelevant. The system is now completely different. We can't just say, "hey, we run the ball a lot" if Indiana or Notre Dame offers a guy we want $100k more to start at guard or some team poaches one of our good depth pieces to be a starter.
That's one thing that is annoying me is the talking heads saying, "hey, just do what we did "1992-2019" when it simply just is not possible anymore.
Yea I'm not saying that at all. You're kind of having an argument with yourself here on 'recruiting'. Not what I'm talking about. I'm just saying if you have small guys emphasizing planning to pass 90% of the time you can't just flip to running power with the same guys.
IDK on ILL, but they've been winning games for a few years now with the general type of O we're trying to do now. Still shotgun and modern but has the running/power aspect emphasized. MI is of course the dream or ideal. Just threw out ILL since thats of course in our wheelhouse of level or whatever you wanna call it. Surprising to hear their line has been poor so far this year, if I recall its all returning starters from last year, with multiple 4-5 year guys. It was one of the main reasons they were ranked so high to start and were a playoff sleeper. maybe some injuries have happened, idk.
Kerb Hohl wrote:DingleJerry wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:
To me this is all irrelevant. The system is now completely different. We can't just say, "hey, we run the ball a lot" if Indiana or Notre Dame offers a guy we want $100k more to start at guard or some team poaches one of our good depth pieces to be a starter.
That's one thing that is annoying me is the talking heads saying, "hey, just do what we did "1992-2019" when it simply just is not possible anymore.
Yea I'm not saying that at all. You're kind of having an argument with yourself here on 'recruiting'. Not what I'm talking about. I'm just saying if you have small guys emphasizing planning to pass 90% of the time you can't just flip to running power with the same guys.
IDK on ILL, but they've been winning games for a few years now with the general type of O we're trying to do now. Still shotgun and modern but has the running/power aspect emphasized. MI is of course the dream or ideal. Just threw out ILL since thats of course in our wheelhouse of level or whatever you wanna call it. Surprising to hear their line has been poor so far this year, if I recall its all returning starters from last year, with multiple 4-5 year guys. It was one of the main reasons they were ranked so high to start and were a playoff sleeper. maybe some injuries have happened, idk.
Illinois has beaten a bunch of bad teams by small margins last year and early this year. I'd love to trade places with them right now, but they aren't that good. If we played their schedule and didn't have our QBs get hurt, I don't think we'd be talking about firing Fickell - as bad as that last loss was.
I don't know...if we had "power run scheme" guys it may make a small difference but we're talking about a system that allowed us to drive a Cadiallac for 25+ years and now we're in a Ford Pinto thanks to new changes but maybe if we managed scheme better, maybe we could be in a Ford Pinto with some added features.
DingleJerry wrote:Kerb Hohl wrote:DingleJerry wrote:
Yea I'm not saying that at all. You're kind of having an argument with yourself here on 'recruiting'. Not what I'm talking about. I'm just saying if you have small guys emphasizing planning to pass 90% of the time you can't just flip to running power with the same guys.
IDK on ILL, but they've been winning games for a few years now with the general type of O we're trying to do now. Still shotgun and modern but has the running/power aspect emphasized. MI is of course the dream or ideal. Just threw out ILL since thats of course in our wheelhouse of level or whatever you wanna call it. Surprising to hear their line has been poor so far this year, if I recall its all returning starters from last year, with multiple 4-5 year guys. It was one of the main reasons they were ranked so high to start and were a playoff sleeper. maybe some injuries have happened, idk.
Illinois has beaten a bunch of bad teams by small margins last year and early this year. I'd love to trade places with them right now, but they aren't that good. If we played their schedule and didn't have our QBs get hurt, I don't think we'd be talking about firing Fickell - as bad as that last loss was.
I don't know...if we had "power run scheme" guys it may make a small difference but we're talking about a system that allowed us to drive a Cadiallac for 25+ years and now we're in a Ford Pinto thanks to new changes but maybe if we managed scheme better, maybe we could be in a Ford Pinto with some added features.
You're digging way to deep trying to argue. All I've said is that completely flipping from big run OL guys to a system wanting smaller quicker pass blocking guys was a tough transtion. And now flipping it back is hard as well. And that in general, trying a shift from our old way to the current one would've been easier/smoother than the way its been done. Somehow, you've turned that into a big argument about I don't even know what