bear2be2 said:
Mothra said:
bear2be2 said:
Mothra said:
bear2be2 said:
Mothra said:
bear2be2 said:
Mothra said:
bear2be2 said:
BUHSFootballFan said:
Looks like Gary went a whopping 7-23 at Oregon State.
2015 2-10
2016 4-8
2017 1-5 fired and told to GTFO
If Rhule has that same record in 2019 and is getting housed routinely the way Anderson's team was this year, he'll be feeling the exact same pressure. No one I've seen here has suggested that Rhule be given an infinite leash regardless of results. Some of us are just willing to give a coach with a strong track record more than five games to prove he can replicate his success in a new environment, particularly when said environment is viewed by most outside the Baylor bubble as a cesspool.
I don't mind giving the guy time (I think he needs at least two seasons), but to come out and lay the eggs he has laid the first half of the season has me not understanding the hope that you and others seem to have in his turning the program around.
Temple fans had the exact same concerns after his first season there. They made exponential improvement after that.
My hope rests in a number of factors. I'll share a few below, but it's largely a waste of time. You and others will suggest I'm an excuse-making Pollyanna, neither one of us will change the other's opinion and the discussion will go nowhere productive. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Rhule will be given a minimum of four years, unless the bottom really falls out. I don't believe that will happen. Many here do. Time will prove who is right.
But as for the reasons I'm hopeful, here are a few.
1. Transition's hard. This is true of all change, but it's especially so when going from intentionally simple schemes to ones that are far more difficult to grasp with players who have been conditioned for years for the former. Art Briles was a brilliant offensive mind, and kudos to him for creating an offensive scheme in which speedy, often one-trick players could excel. But his players have almost always struggled with the transition from Briles ball to the more traditional game everyone else is playing. What we're seeing this year is in many ways analogous to the struggles Briles' best players have experienced when graduating from his program to the NFL. Give these guys another offseason to absorb what Rhule and Co. are trying to do, and I think you'll see significant strides made in all phases.
2. Youth's being served. As of last week, we had 25 freshmen and sophomores on our two deep, and a number of others who are getting time as reserves. Experience matters in college football, and a lot of the mistakes that are costing us games right now are being made by guys who are in unfamiliar or uncomfortable positions. We only graduate a couple of impact seniors this spring. In 2018 and beyond, I expect to see the rest of these guys start making the plays they're not making now and stop making the mistakes they are.
3. Recruiting's going well. Rhule put together a very solid class in a very short period of time last winter, and he's backed that up with an even more talented group this year. We've already got kids from the 2017 class contributing this season, and if he can keep this year's class together, we should be infusing some serious talent into the program.
4. Help is coming. In addition to the freshman we're adding to the program, we've got several transfers waiting in the wings at positions of need. In Hurd, Fruhmorgan and Lockhart, you've got three starting caliber players on the scout team right now. And Beard should provide depth at the very least. Put them on this year's team and we're a lot better. There's no reason they shouldn't help a more veteran group next year. And with a full year to evaluate guys, we should be able to add a JUCO player or two this year as well.
5. I believe in Rhule's plan and vision for the program. Many here mock it, and that's fine. But I believe Rhule knows how to build a program, and he didn't forget how to coach on the flight from Philly to Waco. This season has gotten off to a disastrous start, and I understand the frustration with our record. But I don't think anything we've seen to this point or will see the next seven games is fatal to the program. If we start getting blown out routinely, start to lose key players to other programs and see our recruiting take a nosedive, I'll start to share some of the concerns expressed here. But as long as we play hard, remain competitive and get this class signed, I'm willing to write off 2017 as a one-time mulligan and start grading Rhule's product in Year 2.
6. I don't think Rhule's eggs were ever in the 2017 basket. If you listened closely to what he's said upon being hired, it was pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, he's always viewed this as a long-term building project. I think Rhule was always more concerned about building the foundation for his program than winning games this season. That doesn't excuse this Liberty or UTSA losses, and whether that's the right path or the wise path can be debated, but everything he has said and done to this stage points to that being his focus. Rhule spent months laying out his vision for the program, and it was always couched in a big-picture view. He's interested in building a program, not a team. And he's going to do that at Baylor the same way he did at Temple -- his way.
Whether he's capable of accomplishing that here remains to be seen. He's certainly off to a poor start. But when you're bringing fundamental changes philosophically, as Rhule is in almost every facet of the program, your choices are to scale back what you're doing and meet the players where they are, which would likely provide better results in the short term, or throw everything at your players and make them meet you. Rhule has clearly chosen option B. Again, the wisdom of this can be debated, but if you accept the premise that he's more concerned about where the program is two and three years from now than where it is currently, there's logic in what he's doing.
I think this staff, as with most football coaches, is stubborn and have more confidence in themselves than perhaps they should. They have a plan and a process that has worked for them in the past and that they believe in. And rather than adapting that plan to their ill-fitting talent for what they perceive to be short-term gains, they'd prefer to get the players they've inherited and recruited playing their brand of football, even if it means breaking some of them like wild horses.
That's either a bold perspective or a foolish one. Time will tell. The one thing Rhule has going for him is a long-term contract, so it really doesn't matter what the fans think of him right now. And if he can do here what he did in Temple, where he broke down the program to build it back up, then all will be forgiven in time. If he can't, it never mattered anyway.
Probably the most well-thought out defense of Rhule I have seen on this board. I appreciate you providing your thoughtful perspective. I agree with a lot of what you've written. I thought Rhule was a good hire, though I had hoped for Monty or another Briles clone to keep the nuclear weapon that was the Briles offense in our arsenal. Others have said Briles was the nuclear weapon, and they may be right, but I still think we should have tried. Short of having a Briles protege, I was happy with Rhule. I have followed him closely over the years, and loved his brand of defense at Temple. That is definitely something we could benefit from. Here is where we diverge.
1) I see the inability to adapt to talent on hand as a major flaw. I didn't realize Rhule couldn't do that (or wouldn't) and that is a concern. If it's the latter, I would feel better, even if I think it's not a wise choice.
2) Running 3 schemes on offense was a big mistake, IMO, and I don't think the power I formation he ran at Temple can be successful in the Big 12. Hell, it's not even effective on the national stage. None of the contenders run it. If that is what Rhule wants to do - bring a Penn State like offense to Baylor - I think we are in big trouble, and I simply cannot "trust that process." Do you feel confident that can win the Big 12, much less a Natty?
I don't think Rhule wants to run a power-I. I think he wants to be very multiple from a formation standpoint and be able to run the ball effectively out of all sets, much like what you see in the NFL these days. Unfortunately, we don't have the horses up front to run what he and Nixon want to run right now. And while I'd prefer to see them adjust and go all-in on the offense we saw against OU and in the second half against Kansas State, I'm going to withhold judgment on the merits of this scheme until we get to see it the way it was intended to be run. If our offense is still deficient two years from now, once Rhule has been able to recruit the pieces he wants for it, I'll be right there with you, though.
I think therein lies the problem - wanting to use multiple formations and run it effectively out of all sets. As one of the board's resident coaches pointed out, a jack of all trades is a master of none. I'd rather figure out an offensive identity and master it than try to be a jack of all trades, which is what he is doing. I just don't see that being effective.
If you are going to run the HUNH, then run the HUNH. Slowing down the HUNH makes it predictable. He needs to get out of the headset and let Nixon be.
I don't share your concerns there. There are many teams on the West Coast and elsewhere running exactly the type of offense I'm referring to with success. Multiple formations doesn't mean multiple philosophies.
And we're not going to be a HUNH team under Rhule. He's said many times he's not going to do that at the expense of his defense. Tempo is going to be a tool. It's not going to be a guiding tenant of our offensive scheme.
So, there are teams running a HUNH, Oregon-style spread and traditional I-formation with success on the west coast? Which teams are you referring to?
Don't think you're accurate on this one.
We're not running HUNH now, and we're not going to in the future. Rhule has said that many times. I'm not sure why Baylor fans are so reluctant to listen to and believe him. We're averaging less than 68 snaps per game right now, and that number's not likely to go up significantly in the future.
Running spread formations doesn't make you a HUNH team. With the exception of true power-running teams, just about every team has shotgun, three- and four-wide sets in their playbook. And with the exception of true shotgun spread teams, just about everyone has some under center, two-back sets that they'll incorporate.
This isn't a novel idea. You just have to acknowledge that we're not going to be a HUNH team to accept it.
He has at times. I counted around 11-12 plays in the OU game that were hurry up no huddle (coincidentally, some of our most successful). He has also run out of the i-formation quite a bit, and the Oregon spread, both hurry up no huddle and not.
I agree with you, however, he's not running CAB's offense and didn't expect him to do so (a big mistake, IMO, but so be it). I did expect him to run Oregon's version of the HUNH spread, however, but he's slowed it down so much, it's hard to tell if that's what he's actually running.
In short, I don't think he knows what he wants, or if he does know, he's not running it. He seems to be experimenting. He seemed to run a much faster paced offense against OU than K State - until the second half, where we went with more hurry-up after getting down. I wish he'd just pick one and go with it.
If we aren't going to run the offense that made us a brand, then I would prefer at the very least something efficient and exciting. The Washington offense would certainly be nice. I understand the tendency to want to milk the clock in the Big 12. Unfortunately, there simply isn't a team that has been able to do so and be successful.
