What if?

[slashba33]

I think after tomorrow, we will have a much better idea if there is any hope left for the Jinks Project.

Again, hyperbole. People were saying the same thing about PJ Fleck in his first year at WMU, that's turned out in their favor. If you don't think Jinks is going to work out, call up Moose and get ready to open up your checkbook.

Another stretch comparison. PJ Fleck took over a 4-8 football team and went 1-11 his first year. Their worst loss was 59-3 at Iowa and TSUN put 47 later on them. They were not picked to win their division and go back to the MAC. Hell, they only lost 26-13 to Michigan State that year...the BIG TEN and ROSE Bowl champs. Given the results of their first four non-conf. games, I would say they would be favored by 10 pts. if that team played us tomorrow. I wish I could have some of your optimism, but reality is in the way.

Opponent# Site TV Result
Michigan State* Spartan Stadium • East Lansing, MI BTN L 13–26
Nicholls* Waldo Stadium • Kalamazoo, MI ESPN3 L 23–27
No. 17 Northwestern* Ryan Field • Evanston, IL BTN L 17–38
Iowa* Kinnick Stadium • Iowa City, IA BTN L 3–59

I don't have optimism, but I'm not going to throw a coach and his staff under the bus four games into his tenure. The real reality is that BGSU doesn't have the money to buy out his contract anyways, so the persistent complaining about the state of the program is largely falling on deaf ears outside of this board.

Jinks' contract is $410,000 per year, for five years. He has a buyout clause of $300,000 if he leaves before Dec. 15, 2017.

Right, if he leaves. If he's fired then BG is on the hook for paying off the rest of his contract. $410,000 x 5 years = $2,050,000.

First, we should have NEVER signed ANY coach with no real college experience to a 5-year deal to begin with. Second, not optimal by any stretch, but it's not writing one fat check for $2M, it's paying him his salary for not coaching for the next 4 years IF the deal was done correctly. Maybe this is why we just signed the deal to play ND for $1.1M to offset this? Lastly, if a coach is going to take $2M from my school for producing a complete dumpster fire...his a$$ is going under the bus!

[Flipper]

Meanwhile in the real world...five year deals are the norm. If you don't want to sign a new coach for that...find somebody else. The optics of dumping a guy after one year (one who doesn't play grab ass in the bars) are horrible. There is literally no upside to trying this...the program suffers through more instability...you're out $2mil..there's no guarantee the next guy will be any better so what then?. Give the guy a few years to build his team, the AD a couple of years to get acclimated and reacquaint himself to the Midwest.

[FalconPatriarch]

It's rare, in today's coaching era, to see a coach that's married to a system but its clearly the case at BG. He had losing records for his first 2 years at the HS level but won it all in year three. PROBLEM, that was HS. Our defense isn't as bad as they play, they're TIRED! Look at the KO and Punt teams and you'll see our starters out there.

The play can call for the slot-receiver to run an out-and-up, for example, and at the line he recognizes the LB is blitzing. Instead of going and sit down where the LB was occupying, thus becoming the hot receiver, he must still run the out-and-up because that's what the play called for and receivers don't make adjustments because that's not how the offense operates.

HS plays at the collegiate level is problematic.

[gspointer]

It's rare, in today's coaching era, to see a coach that's married to a system but its clearly the case at BG. He had losing records for his first 2 years at the HS level but won it all in year three. PROBLEM, that was HS. Our defense isn't as bad as they play, they're TIRED! Look at the KO and Punt teams and you'll see our starters out there.

The play can call for the slot-receiver to run an out-and-up, for example, and at the line he recognizes the LB is blitzing. Instead of going and sit down where the LB was occupying, thus becoming the hot receiver, he must still run the out-and-up because that's what the play called for and receivers don't make adjustments because that's not how the offense operates.

HS plays at the collegiate level is problematic.

Not sure where you get your info but that is incorrect. This offense requires more reads by both qb and receiver the problem is receivers are young and making a lot of bad reads

[hammb]

It's rare, in today's coaching era, to see a coach that's married to a system but its clearly the case at BG. He had losing records for his first 2 years at the HS level but won it all in year three. PROBLEM, that was HS. Our defense isn't as bad as they play, they're TIRED! Look at the KO and Punt teams and you'll see our starters out there.

The play can call for the slot-receiver to run an out-and-up, for example, and at the line he recognizes the LB is blitzing. Instead of going and sit down where the LB was occupying, thus becoming the hot receiver, he must still run the out-and-up because that's what the play called for and receivers don't make adjustments because that's not how the offense operates.

HS plays at the collegiate level is problematic.

Not sure where you get your info but that is incorrect. This offense requires more reads by both qb and receiver the problem is receivers are young and making a lot of bad reads

I don't know enough about our current system to say for sure, but I can assure anybody wondering that NO offense, anywhere, in the history of football, has required LESS "reading" in the passing game than the Dino Babers/Art Briles air raid. It was the most simplistic version of offense imaginable where our outside receivers essentially ran 2 routes the entire season. Then we'd usually have a slot guy coming in underneath to pick up the trash/provide a hot read.

It's incredibly effective, and virtually indefensible if you've got the horses, but it's also incredibly simplistic. So simplistic that the coaches often times talk about being able to install the entire offense in a week or less of training camp. Which is huge because they can then work the rest of their time on refining execution and not teaching new concepts.

As for it being "rare, in today's coaching era, to see a coach married to a system..."? This is probably the most ludicrous thing I've read on any message board pertaining to football in a LONG time. Being married to the system is pretty much what defines nearly EVERY coach. Kingsbury, Meyer, Briles, Babers, Petrino, even Saban really....all married to their given system of offense. Saban has relaxed a bit by opening things up a tad, but he's still hardcore about pounding the rock.

College football is about offense. Each coach has their own offensive philosophy. They take it where ever they go, because they aren't about to go down without implementing the offense THEY know/love. Just crazy to try and argue otherwise...

[MarkL]

I would add to the abov, coaches who drastically change up their offense rarely find success. A few examples ...
- Phil Fulmer hired Dave Clawson to bring the spread to Tennessee. It drastically failed because Fulmer wanted a slower paced methodical offense to help his defense but he hired an innovative offensive coordinator who wanted to spread out and go for explosive plays.
- AL Groh hired Gregg Brandon to bring the spread offense and some excitement to his dying program. It was like Tennessee, an abysmal failure in a one year experiment.
- Tommy Tuberville hired Tony Franklin to switch Auburn from a power pro offense to a pass friendly spread in order to keep up with the Jones'. It was similarly a one year failure where Tuberville did not study up on how to adjust the entire team to a faster offense.
- A few years later at Auburn after Gus Malzahn left, Gene Chizik decided to transition the team back to a pro style offense in order to appease his own ego as everybody knew Malzahn, not Chizik, was the genius behind the 2010 national title run. It was an abysmal failure. Chizik was fired two years removed from winning it all.
- This is why I'm expecting Franklin at Penn State and Strong at Texas to be on their ways out. They went out and hired innovative offenses which are nothing like previously run at the school. Strong has a better chance at surviving IMO than Franklin.

[FalconPatriarch]

I would add to the abov, coaches who drastically change up their offense rarely find success. A few examples ...
- Phil Fulmer hired Dave Clawson to bring the spread to Tennessee. It drastically failed because Fulmer wanted a slower paced methodical offense to help his defense but he hired an innovative offensive coordinator who wanted to spread out and go for explosive plays.
- AL Groh hired Gregg Brandon to bring the spread offense and some excitement to his dying program. It was like Tennessee, an abysmal failure in a one year experiment.
- Tommy Tuberville hired Tony Franklin to switch Auburn from a power pro offense to a pass friendly spread in order to keep up with the Jones'. It was similarly a one year failure where Tuberville did not study up on how to adjust the entire team to a faster offense.
- A few years later at Auburn after Gus Malzahn left, Gene Chizik decided to transition the team back to a pro style offense in order to appease his own ego as everybody knew Malzahn, not Chizik, was the genius behind the 2010 national title run. It was an abysmal failure. Chizik was fired two years removed from winning it all.
- This is why I'm expecting Franklin at Penn State and Strong at Texas to be on their ways out. They went out and hired innovative offenses which are nothing like previously run at the school. Strong has a better chance at surviving IMO than Franklin.

Are you suggesting that the mentioned coach's would see that there are some growing opportunities at QB and WR but the O-Line is their strength that they would not slow the game down and play to the strengths of the team? Of course they would! So they aren't married to an offense are they.

I attended 2 games this year and they aren't breaking off routes.

[MarkL]

At what point in my post did I indicate anything about our receivers? I'm talking about coaches who change up their offense se drastically in one year. I believe our receivers have the greatest room for improvement. Chemistry between receivers and QB is not there. Receivers are shuffled around a bit this week and I'm hoping making Zimmerman a starter will add some pop, and benching Phouthavong may light a fire under him.

[FalconPatriarch]

At what point in my post did I indicate anything about our receivers? I'm talking about coaches who change up their offense se drastically in one year. I believe our receivers have the greatest room for improvement. Chemistry between receivers and QB is not there. Receivers are shuffled around a bit this week and I'm hoping making Zimmerman a starter will add some pop, and benching Phouthavong may light a fire under him.

Hammb was who I was actually responding to but sometimes the spirit will shift you away from folly. I have opinion like all others and me and my brothers, both who played NFL ball, see a coach not willing to play to the strength of his team by adding a double TE and grind it out. Which by the way will help the defense immensely. FYI, to any one, believing in a "System " is not the same as being "Married " to an offense. This is why I never comment on blogs, nor my brothers. Like they always say to me, "Coaches, today, make really good money so when you have a know-it-all on a blog calling people's statements dumb, if they knew so much about football why aren't they getting some of that good money coaches are getting. " I will go back to reading thanks guys. GO FALCONS