ADVERTISEMENT

FIRE BILL LEGG

I would add Doc didn't inherit a fine tuned engine that Pruett got and Pruett did adjust much better and faster than Doc, which is very rare.
Doc had to put his kind of players in first before he could win and in year 2 he actually won. Which isn't easy to do.

One can also speculate how Pruett would have done for 2 more years when the NCAA sanctions set in. He left before they came and really affected us.
Its easy to say Pruett was better because he got a very good team already, never had to re-build, and was in the MAC. Doc had to completely overhaul the team he got.

That "finely tuned engine" that Pruett inherited had just lost twice to 1-AA teams, and then beat UT Chattanooga by 3, beat the Citadel by 2, and beat Hofstra by 2. The very next year with Pruett no one got closer than 14 points to beating the Herd and we beat 8 ranked teams in the process.

And no. Holliday did not have to rebuild or overhaul anything. He inherited a 7-6 team that won a bowl game and 3 of those losses were by a total of 12 points.

What really happened is that Marshall University "inherited" the best football coach in our lifetime and his name is Bobby Pruett.
 
I was not at the game so I going off what I've read in this thread. I been going to live sporting events for over 45 years, Pro, Collegiate, HS you name it, but I've never heard a crowd in person chant to have a coach fired. Marshall has the reputation of begin some of the most cordial fans in college sports, so that should be a huge eye opener as to how frustrated this fan base is.

I can't say for certain but I would be shocked if a chant to fire a coach wasn't uttered at every college and Pro stadium whose team was losing badly or underperforming. It's the nature of the beast.

These guys enter into the job knowing it's not garanteed and these things can happen.


Looks like we have two camps in this fight -
1. AD, the media and some fans/donors.
VS
2. A majority of MU fans and donors who want change.

We'll see who wins.
 
That "finely tuned engine" that Pruett inherited had just lost twice to 1-AA teams, and then beat UT Chattanooga by 3, beat the Citadel by 2, and beat Hofstra by 2. The very next year with Pruett no one got closer than 14 points to beating the Herd and we beat 8 ranked teams in the process.

And no. Holliday did not have to rebuild or overhaul anything. He inherited a 7-6 team that won a bowl game and 3 of those losses were by a total of 12 points.

What really happened is that Marshall University "inherited" the best football coach in our lifetime and his name is Bobby Pruett.


Uhm, yes he did. That 7-6 team was the best team Snyder ever had however, it was Snyder's players. Doc's style didn't fit well with what was given. It's been pretty known that a new coach isn't always going to be compatible with the team they get. Hence why (unless you go 0-12) you won't be fired if you have a bad first season.
 
Uhm, yes he did. That 7-6 team was the best team Snyder ever had however, it was Snyder's players. Doc's style didn't fit well with what was given. It's been pretty known that a new coach isn't always going to be compatible with the team they get. Hence why (unless you go 0-12) you won't be fired if you have a bad first season.

No, he didn't. The talent was there to do better with a good coach. Doc ain't. As proven by the fact Doc's recruits don't fit well with his own system. Cato and a watered down schedule made doc look good for 3 years. The other 5 years he averages 5.4 wins and 6.8 losses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sistersville
No, he didn't. The talent was there to do better with a good coach. Doc ain't. As proven by the fact Doc's recruits don't fit well with his own system. Cato and a watered down schedule made doc look good for 3 years. The other 5 years he averages 5.4 wins and 6.8 losses.

Try re-reading what I wrote.
 
I would add Doc didn't inherit a fine tuned engine that Pruett got and Pruett did adjust much better and faster than Doc, which is very rare.
Doc had to put his kind of players in first before he could win and in year 2 he actually won. Which isn't easy to do.

One can also speculate how Pruett would have done for 2 more years when the NCAA sanctions set in. He left before they came and really affected us.
Its easy to say Pruett was better because he got a very good team already, never had to re-build, and was in the MAC. Doc had to completely overhaul the team he got.
Pruett could take less talent and beat Doc 90% of the time. It is not even close.
So....FIU, FAU, UTSA, and Southern Miss actually did that to Doc this year.
 
You could inherit Alabama's entire starting offense and still struggle if they aren't the system you're coaching.

If that’s the excuse than stop with he inherited nothing. I’m fine with you saying he didn’t have the right players for his system, but that’s not the same argument you were trying to imply initially. Fact is he had a talented team when he took over, and it’s plainly obvious to see that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cottrell75
If that’s the excuse than stop with he inherited nothing. I’m fine with you saying he didn’t have the right players for his system, but that’s not the same argument you were trying to imply initially. Fact is he had a talented team when he took over, and it’s plainly obvious to see that.

How is it that Snyder couldn't win with those guys? I'm not questioning the talent at this point but he seemingly had NFL caliber players every season and managed 1 winning record, his last?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Real SamC
Did you watch the games? Snyder couldn’t coach, he couldn’t win close games

Of course I did...and you're right, he couldn't coach. Its just sad that team he had included NFL caliber players but no achievement in college.
 
I think of one huge difference between Doc and Pruett.

Doc stepped down in competition (with the rewash C-USA 2.0) and coincidentally started winning, albeit even that was only for a brief period of 3 years, until the conference starting to improve ever so slightly.

Pruett, on the other hand, stepped up not only in conference, but from Div I-AA to Div-IA and kept on winning, even as the MAC started to improve with Toledo, BGSU, Miami, and Western Michigan all having seasons ranked in the top 25.

Big difference.

BP also beat Clemson and USC on the road #20 BYU in a neutral and "competed" vs. Ohio State, Georgia, MSU, UT and NC...... all games on the road, not to mention a thrilling 1st game at WVU. Both had solid bowl wins.
 
Bullshit, Doc inherited a bowl team with 5 NFL players on it.
True, but the team was still very average overall in terms of talent. We been through this stupid ****ing argument before. We only returned a majority of the starters and 2-deep from the 2009 team, but most of the players on offense weren't great fits for Legg's offense and the we lost Minter as DC. It took two years of recruiting to get the right fits on offense, and took bringing in Heater in 2013 to fix the defense. Here is a breakdown of the transition into the Doc Era, and it clearly shows that the first 2 years were transition years where we were pedestrian on offense and defense:

Offensive Unit (Doc Recruits with comparison to 2009/2009 numbers include players returning for 2010 season)
  • 2009 - 7 starters, 14 of 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 21.9 PPG
  • 2010 - 0 starters, 3 in 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 20.4 PPG
  • 2011 - 5 starters, 9 in 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 20.4 PPG
  • 2012 - 7 starters, 16 in 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 41.1 PPG
  • 2013 - 9 starters, 19 in 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 42.8 PPG
Defensive Unit (Doc Recruits with comparison to 2009/2009 numbers include players returning for 2010 season)
  • 2009 - 6 starters, 14 of 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 22.8 PAPG
  • 2010 - 0 starters, 4 in 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 28.7 PAPG
  • 2011 - 3 starters, 8 in 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 26.1 PAPG
  • 2012 - 8 starters, 16 in 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 42.6 PAPG
  • 2013 - 7 starters, 16 in 22-man 2-deep, Central Mean 22.2 PAPG
 
No, he didn't. The talent was there to do better with a good coach. Doc ain't. As proven by the fact Doc's recruits don't fit well with his own system. Cato and a watered down schedule made doc look good for 3 years. The other 5 years he averages 5.4 wins and 6.8 losses.
No it wasn't. There were some very good players but the systems Doc's coordinators used were a drastic change from those that Snyder's coordinators ran, and there were a lot of bad fits, especially on offense.
 
No it wasn't. There were some very good players but the systems Doc's coordinators used were a drastic change from those that Snyder's coordinators ran, and there were a lot of bad fits, especially on offense.

Yes.
It was.
Whether they fit in "doc's system" (whatever that is) is irrelevant. The talent was there to do better if a good coach had taken over. A good coach take what he HAS, and works with that. A lesser coach attempts to fit round pegs in square holes, and it doesn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwolfHerdfan
I agree with extragreen and that does not happen often.

Pruett and Doc are not even on the same planet in terms of coaching ability. Doc is average at best and there are a lot of things masking his faults and right now that is a AD that is protecting him at all costs.
 
Well the "system" of the head coach is pretty relevant because, well...they're the coach.
Snyder couldn't win with 2 OC's and was Minter there the whole time and DC?

I think you're missig the point extra, nobody's saying there wasn't talent (I retract any such comments about that, there was talent) but for the system and coaching coming in, it wasn't a good fit.
I said its rare for a coach to take over and find immediate long term success, which is what Pruett did, but he obviously had a system compatible with the team he had.
Many coaches, even good ones, have a style they run and "system" they use. They find success using those, and its pretty much expected for a new coach to have 1-2 years of adjustments.
 
Well the "system" of the head coach is pretty relevant

It's irrelevant to what we were talking about, and that is the AMOUNT of talent inherited

I think you're missig the point extra, nobody's saying there wasn't talent (I retract any such comments about that, there was talent) but for the system and coaching coming in, it wasn't a good fit

No, I'm not missing the point. If the talent you inherit is, for example, slow but powerful, then you temporarily adapt your "system" to that of your talent. And eventually you move over into your speed "system" as you recruit players that fit that system.

I said its rare for a coach to take over and find immediate long term success, which is what Pruett did, but he obviously had a system compatible with the team he had.

Obvious? Then it's just as obvious that Pruett chose a system that best used the talent he had inherited.

and its pretty much expected for a new coach to have 1-2 years of adjustments.

But, just like I said, BP was good enough not to need those 1-2 years of adjustments. The best coaches hit the ground running.
 
Tell me how a coach stops a kid from fumbling? Throwing an interception? Now, you could bench the player (after the fact); however, if you think they represent your best chance to win, you can only coach him up, see the progress in practice, and hope he executes in game. When asked what concerned him most going into the Iron Bowl this year Nick Saban said: "I'm most concerned about our players remaining focused and executing." Once a player (of any sport) enters the field of play, it's up to them to perform how they were coached. The fumble, interception, a missed block, or blown coverage is on them (the player).


Well, help me with this one. Marshall has played 12 games this year, six of those at home. In those 6 home games they failed to produce an offensive TD in the first Q all year, o'fer season. The stadium has been open for 27 years and this is the first time that has ever happened.

So, if you are doing your job effectively, putting the time into properly game planning for each opponent, how are you so ineffective game after game? How can you not devise a single plan that effective exploits the weaknesses of the opponent that you have seen on film? Keep in mind that it wasn't like we played Alabama at home every game.

My take is that we simply don't change our game plan to exploit weaknesses of our individual opponents. We are reactionary, not proactive, on offense. We do what we do, same thing week after week, year after year. In order for that to be successful you are putting players in a position where they have to execute flawlessly to be successful. Problem is that they are not coached well enough to be flawless, no team is, and we don't have the overall quality of players to cover the mistakes that will certainly happen. That's where coaching matters most. You have to know the capabilities of your players, most importantly their weaknesses as they pertain to your opponents strengths, and adjust accordingly.

The highest ranked offense Legg has produced without Cato is 64th. In the 5 seasons excluding 2012-14 our average offensive rank is 96th. If it's an execution issue everyone of those 5 seasons then we are either really poorly coached or have done a horrid job recruiting offensive talent.
 
Well, help me with this one. Marshall has played 12 games this year, six of those at home. In those 6 home games they failed to produce an offensive TD in the first Q all year, o'fer season. The stadium has been open for 27 years and this is the first time that has ever happened.

So, if you are doing your job effectively, putting the time into properly game planning for each opponent, how are you so ineffective game after game? How can you not devise a single plan that effective exploits the weaknesses of the opponent that you have seen on film? Keep in mind that it wasn't like we played Alabama at home every game.

My take is that we simply don't change our game plan to exploit weaknesses of our individual opponents. We are reactionary, not proactive, on offense. We do what we do, same thing week after week, year after year. In order for that to be successful you are putting players in a position where they have to execute flawlessly to be successful. Problem is that they are not coached well enough to be flawless, no team is, and we don't have the overall quality of players to cover the mistakes that will certainly happen. That's where coaching matters most. You have to know the capabilities of your players, most importantly their weaknesses as they pertain to your opponents strengths, and adjust accordingly.

The highest ranked offense Legg has produced without Cato is 64th. In the 5 seasons excluding 2012-14 our average offensive rank is 96th. If it's an execution issue everyone of those 5 seasons then we are either really poorly coached or have done a horrid job recruiting offensive talent.


Your last paragraph is dead on. Frankly, I think it's a bit of both. Poor coaching and very poor recruiting to our needs/scheme.
 
Probably worth noting anytime you compare a Marshall coach to Bob Pruett that you take two things in mind:

1) He inherited a program in transition from FCS to FBS, loaded with NFL talent, on a positive trajectory
2) We cheated the whole time he was here, and when we had to stop, he quit
 
Our issues isn't just one thing on offense. Yeah, Legg catches hell from us for not adapting, calling the same stubborn play even though it hasn't worked etc etc. Obviously that's an issue. The other issue that glares at me is the lack of development from the position coaches. How many mistakes should a player/position make before they start to improve? Route running at the receiver position has been wanting for a while now. Run blocking has been terrible since 2015. QB, where do you even start? Lack of execution every game at the worst times. If execution is the main issue, then address it. If play calling leads to execution issues, then call something else. The whole offensive side is wanting, it isn't just one thing. If you fire the OC but keep the position coaches, will anything change for the better, and vice versa?
 
Yes.
It was.
Whether they fit in "doc's system" (whatever that is) is irrelevant. The talent was there to do better if a good coach had taken over. A good coach take what he HAS, and works with that. A lesser coach attempts to fit round pegs in square holes, and it doesn't work.
So you are saying Legg should have just gone with the true Freshmen in 2010? None of the RBs on our roster from 2009 fit his system. They were pro-style system RBs. We went to a zone blocking scheme with his system and our OL was a bunch of road-grader Big Ten/MAC style linemen. The receivers were the only ones that could translate to playing in his system and they did okay considering they had Anderson at QB, and Anderson had never run a read option offense. Graham could have done it, but he was to busy smoking away his CFB career.

Defense was less of an adjustment, and Doc did offer Minter the option to stay, but Rippon wasn't anywhere near as good as Minter as a DC. Then our best DBs and LBs suddenly decide to get in trouble off the field and get themselves dismissed, which resulted in much less experienced talent the first couple of years. Before you say, well doc hired Rippon, that true but he had a solid resume and was recommended by Dunlap and Pennington for the job. 12-13 and a bowl win in the first two years after 11-14 the previous two years was a slight improvement, and the foundations were laid for 2013-2015.
 
Last edited:
I agree with extragreen and that does not happen often.

Pruett and Doc are not even on the same planet in terms of coaching ability. Doc is average at best and there are a lot of things masking his faults and right now that is a AD that is protecting him at all costs.
Who is talking about Pruett? Most of the comparisons are between Doc and Snyder.
 
So you are saying Legg should have just gone with the true Freshmen in 2010? None of the RBs on our roster from 2009 fit his system. They were pro-style system RBs. We went to a zone blocking scheme with his system and none of our OL had any experience in that type of system. The receivers were the only ones that could translate to playing in his system and they did okay considering they had Anderson at QB, and Anderson had never run a read option offense. Graham could have done it, but he was to busy smoking away his CFB career.

Defense was less of an adjustment, and Doc did offer Minter the option to stay, but Rippon wasn't anywhere near as good as Minter as a DC. Then our best DBs and LBs suddenly decide to get in trouble off the field and get themselves dismissed, which resulted in much less experienced talent the first couple of years. Before you say, well doc hired Rippon, that true but he had a solid resume and was recommended by Dunlap and Pennington for the job. 12-13 and a bowl win in the first two years after 11-14 the previous two years was a slight improvement, and the foundations were laid for 2013-2015.

Stop. Extra is going to ignore what you're saying.
 
Probably worth noting anytime you compare a Marshall coach to Bob Pruett that you take two things in mind:

1) He inherited a program in transition from FCS to FBS, loaded with NFL talent, on a positive trajectory
2) We cheated the whole time he was here, and when we had to stop, he quit
Ouch. You could throw in that we actually joined a weaker conference back then when moving up to FBS and the MAC as well.
 
Probably worth noting anytime you compare a Marshall coach to Bob Pruett that you take two things in mind:

1) He inherited a program in transition from FCS to FBS, loaded with NFL talent, on a positive trajectory
2) We cheated the whole time he was here, and when we had to stop, he quit

Nice fantasy you built for yourself. You ought to get into script writing but just make sure you select fiction writing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: extragreen
Saying the MAC in the 90s was weaker than CUSA now is laughable. They were both jokes. The difference is we dominated the joke MAC and we have stunk up this version of CUSA.

Only a freaking Marshall fan could have a negative view of the most successful coach we have ever had.

Also for all that NFL talent how many of them besides Moss were high recruits. 4 and 5 star recruits. Pruett and his coaching staff developed a ton of those kids into pros.

Chad Pennington had one offer besides us coming out of high school. Nobody predicted he would develop into what he became. Byron was highly recruited as a tight end not as a QB and he became a first round nfl draft pick. The revisionist history that people on this board pull out of their ass to try and demean Coach Pruett is sad. Doing it to prop up this current coaching staff is a joke.
 
Probably worth noting anytime you compare a Marshall coach to Bob Pruett that you take two things in mind:

1) He inherited a program in transition from FCS to FBS, loaded with NFL talent, on a positive trajectory
2) We cheated the whole time he was here, and when we had to stop, he quit

1) At least Pruett inherited talent and did not squander it. Doc would likely have ruined every one of those kids' chances at an NFL career

2) I have a hard time believing that paying a kid $20/hr for a job to do some custodial work really lured in big time talent and made all the difference for us to win back in the 90's. Sorry, not trying to excuse what was done, but I think in the grand scheme, it didn't really give us a competitive advantage. ALL programs do things which violate NCAA rules. We just don't seem to be very good at cheating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-S HerdFan
2) I have a hard time believing that paying a kid $20/hr for a job to do some custodial work really lured in big time talent and made all the difference for us to win back in the 90's.
To understand the benefit of Mops for Props, you have to remember that it happened back in the days before all the major conferences shut the door on their member schools accepting non-qualifiers. Essentially, we were beating out schools like WVU for athletes by offering under-the-table scholarships to players the NCAA forbade schools from giving scholarships to. This is especially important when you consider the nature of props, who typically come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and lack the means to pay for going to college without a scholarship during their prop year.

I can't help but look at how much success we had before we were sanctioned, and how we've managed to do since, and not think that this program helped us tremendously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ninegate
To understand the benefit of Mops for Props, you have to remember that it happened back in the days before all the major conferences shut the door on their member schools accepting non-qualifiers. Essentially, we were beating out schools like WVU for athletes by offering under-the-table scholarships to players the NCAA forbade schools from giving scholarships to. This is especially important when you consider the nature of props, who typically come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and lack the means to pay for going to college without a scholarship during their prop year.

I can't help but look at how much success we had before we were sanctioned, and how we've managed to do since, and not think that this program helped us tremendously.

Just curious, do you know any specific athletes which were brought in under this pretense? I'm wondering how much we benefited from this.
 
Here's something I found:

12 Marshall players suspended
By ANTONYA ENGLISH, ALEX ABRAMS and Times wires

© St. Petersburg Times,
published August 31, 2001

GAINESVILLE -- Marshall could be without 12 players when the Thundering Herd plays at Florida on Saturday night.

Fourteen Marshall student-athletes, including 12 football players, have been suspended by the NCAA for receiving extra work benefits, the school announced Thursday.

Marshall is appealing.

Dave Wellman, director of communications at Marshall, said the school would not release the names of the suspended players. But Thursday night, Marshall coach Bobby Pruett said "a bunch of them are starters."

Marshall officials said highly-touted quarterback Byron Leftwich, a 3,000-yard passer last season, did not have a summer job last year, and that he is not suspended.

The NCAA violations occurred before February 2000 and the players were suspended. They were reinstated Thursday, with the suspensions as part of the conditions.

Two football players will miss one game, and 10 others will miss three games. Two basketball players will miss 30 percent of the season.

"We're just going to have to play without them," Pruett said. "We'll play with what we've got left.

"This is unfortunate, but I prefer to reserve further comment on this situation until we know the result of our appeal."

Thursday's announcement is not related to a current NCAA investigation into study materials given to several athletes by an assistant professor two summers ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ninegate
And? We all know we had mops for props it’s not a secret. Jim Donnan had it as well. Dickpath and Pruett did a crappy job of keeping up with it and we got popped. There were very few major players that were a part of that campaign.

The reason why we were hit as hard as we were was due to the fact the big donor who was behind the program viewed the NCAA investigator as a nuisance and beneath him. So they slapped the lack of institutional control on it as well.

To act like that’s why we were successful is one of the dumber things I’ve ever read on a message board and craps on every accomplishment we have had over the years. But you don’t like Pruett we get it right licious so it’s all good.

As I’ve said only at Marshall would you have a group of “fans” not like the most successful coach in our history. Conference championships, bowl wins, heisman finalists, nfl players not enough for the Angels if Virtue fan base that populates the board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: extragreen
1) At least Pruett inherited talent and did not squander it. Doc would likely have ruined every one of those kids' chances at an NFL career

2) I have a hard time believing that paying a kid $20/hr for a job to do some custodial work really lured in big time talent and made all the difference for us to win back in the 90's. Sorry, not trying to excuse what was done, but I think in the grand scheme, it didn't really give us a competitive advantage. ALL programs do things which violate NCAA rules. We just don't seem to be very good at cheating.
shoot Black,they were paying the BB players like that back in the 80's. I worked one summer with Laverne Evans and he was the slowest worker I had ever seen bag groceries. Ginos used to hire them as well from what I remember.
 
I think the problem with arguing that we were only successful because we cheated is that, while we have struggled since getting caught, we also have had 2 terrible head coaches during the same time frame. Snyder and Doc cannot be used as a litmus test for measuring the impact of no longer being able to pay football players $20/hr for doing basically nothing.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT