Snyder Teams

[ohio herd]

How many of you think that they would do better? I mean Mark always gets hammered on here but he played in a way more difficult C-USA and OOC. I'm not saying he was a great coach. I mean since the season is a dumpster fire again we might as well find something else to argue about on here.

 

[GreenDuke]

I thought you meant Charlie Snyder.

 

[BleedsGreen33]

I am done with Doc, but a Snyder coached team would have quit at halftime. For all of Doc's shortcomings as a coach we almost never quit save for the end of 2015.

 

[ohio herd]

I am done with Doc, but a Snyder coached team would have quit at halftime. For all of Doc's shortcomings as a coach we almost never quit save for the end of 2015.

that may be true Bleeds i am just not so sure they would have played a half with only something like 50 yards of offense.

 

[jrod64]

Snyder was an idiot but I'm convinced he was a better recruiter than Doc. His game coaching was terrible but on par with Doc. He still has more players playing in NFL right now

 

[jrod64]

At least Syder was personable and not so secretive. He may not have been smart but at least he interacted with the community. There is a LOT to be said about that

 

[BleedsGreen33]

Snyder was an idiot but I'm convinced he was a better recruiter than Doc. His game coaching was terrible but on par with Doc. He still has more players playing in NFL right now

If he does it's not by a big margin. He may have recruited them, but they flourished under Doc. While Doc has been disappointing of late there was never any hope. The only reason we're pissed at Doc is because there were legit expectations. That could never be said under Snyder. Snyder's bar was a bowl and that only happened after 5 seasons. Since Doc took over we have been to bowl games every year save for 2 and we have come away winners.

Doc has become complacent and his brand of football stale. It's just time to move on. Not saying Doc is as good as Pruett, but even Pruett's teams started to nose dove in his last two seasons.

 

[mlblack16.]

Snyder would have done ok if he would have taken over the defense permanently and had a solid OC to run the offense. He may not be a genius, but Snyder was a solid defensive coach.

 

[jrod64]

Snyder hasn't coached here for 9 years and he still has more NFL guys playing than Doc. Facts is facts .

 

[Bankerreturns]

It's close. Doc's two best years were playing teams like Charlotte, a brand new startup, ODU, a brand new move up, FAU and FIU when they had never even been good in the belt, UTSA, another new start up, etc. What has happened is that all those teams have actually gotten better. They are no longer full of FCS players.

If Butch Davis stays at FIU, Kiffen at FAU, and Charlotte and ODU decide to get better coaches we are going to be an east bottom feeder. The overall quality of the staff has dropped off the last several years and my feeling is its because Doc is just too controlling. He's gotten lazy recruiting, much like Pruett did toward the end, by putting all his eggs in the prop basket. Hiring Cramsey was a waste because Doc is obviously not letting him run his offense.

Short of getting another absolute stud QB dropping in our lap, I just don't see a path to success under Doc. You shouldn't need a Cato or Pennington to win games. If you do, you're in trouble because there are very few of them out there.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Hiring Cramsey was a waste because Doc is obviously not letting him run his offense.

You keep saying that, but I am not hearing your argument as to why you believe that.

Cramsey has been at the FBS level for two other seasons: one year at FIU and one year at Nevada. His offense this year at Marshall has very, very similar production to both of his other years at the FBS level.

Were Polian and Cristobal also not letting him run his offense in those years?

 

[Bankerreturns]

To an extent, yes. Look at his history and how his system evolved throughout his career. Back at the start of his OC career at NH he was fairly vanilla and those teams ran around 70 plays a game, a standard pace. He went to a bad FIU team and ran about 70 plays a game. Went back down to Montana and started developing his identity. Ran 71 plays a game first year, 74 the second and 82 the third. You see there that he was about increasing tempo. So he moves back up, because his results made him a desirable hire, and at Nevada he's right back to running 69 plays per game. Drops back down to Sam Houston and runs 77 plays a game, has the #1 offense in FCS. Comes to Marshall and is back to 70 plays a game.

His stated style when we hired him was all gas, no brakes. Doesn't sound like a guy who wants to snap with 5 on the play clock all the time. Maybe I'm completely wrong (see, it's okay to say that), but I believe, based on his history and comments, that he would like to do much more with the tempo of the offense but that Doc, convinced by Heater, believes that up tempo puts too much pressure on the defense (which is why we quit running tempo after Heater came here).

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

First, plays per game to judge tempo is not a good measure. There are far too many variables that could impact that and not be reflective of the tempo of an offense. Plays per minute of possession is far better. But without taking the time to look at that, I'll respond to your statistic:

Marshall is running just under 72 plays/game this year, not the 70 that you claimed. You've said that at NH, Cramsey ran around 70 plays per game. In other words, he has been faster at Marshall slightly. According to you, he then went to Montana State where he ran 71 plays, 74 plays, and 81 plays per minute. In checking your numbers, I have to again shake my head at the banker who struggles with math. In 2015, his third year at Montana State, he only averaged 76 plays per game, not the 81 that you claimed. You then claimed he averaged 69 at Nevada and 77 at SHSU.

NH (2009-2011): 70
FIU (2012): 70
Montana State (2013): 71
Montana State (2014): 74
Montana State (2015): 76
Nevada (2016): 69
SHSU (2017): 77
Marshall (2018): 72

I'm not seeing his plays per game at Marshall being any different than he's been his entire career. His low for his career is 69, his high is 77, and most years he is in the low 70s, just like he is this year.

 

[Bankerreturns]

yep, I screwed up and pulled Montanas numbers, not Montana State.

 

[pdbailey]

If Butch Davis stays at FIU, Kiffen at FAU, and Charlotte and ODU decide to get better coaches we are going to be an east bottom feeder. The overall quality of the staff has dropped off the last several years and my feeling is its because Doc is just too controlling. He's gotten lazy recruiting, much like Pruett did toward the end, by putting all his eggs in the prop basket. Hiring Cramsey was a waste because Doc is obviously not letting him run his offense.

Our recruiting isn't lazy at all as the last three classes have been good with recruits that have stuck in the program. 2012-2015 was bad recruiting with unbelievable attrition due to talented headcases. We have offered around 300 recruits in the 2019 class and could end up with another good class after NSD in February. We have only been taking about 6-7 NQs per year so we haven't been putting all our eggs in that basket either. NQs (futures) as we like to call them are supplemental to the recruiting classes as we aren't hurt if they don't get eligible and we gain a potentially good player if they do. I guess a NQs like Curry, Meyers, Johnson, Grooms, Butler, Reaves, Dillon, Tindal, Pittman, McManus, Allen, Davis, G. Thompson, M. Thompson, Hernandez, Hames, King, Yulee, Cumberlander, and Hodge weren't worth it. We have had 30 of 53 NQs from the 2010-2017 recruiting class stay in the program for at least 3 years and a large portion of those recruits became starters or stars for us. we really have had a lot of success in taking NQs.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

We have only been taking about 6-7 NQs per year

The use of "only" usually signifies a low or below average number. "Only" taking 6-7 NQs per year is a hell of a lot of NQs to take based on national average, G5 average, conference average, or any other comparison you'd like to view.

We have had 30 of 53 NQs from the 2010-2017 recruiting class stay in the program for at least 3 years and a large portion of those recruits became starters or stars for us.

So right from the start, only about 55% of NQs stick around for at least 3 years. You claim that a "large portion" end up being starters. I don't know what a "large portion" is, but even if it's 75% of those 30, you're still only looking at about 23 of those 53 NQs becoming starters.

That's no way to succeed long term for a program.

 

[JudgeDD]

I wasn't around for the "Snyder Years," but this board talks more about those glory days than the Penn State board talks about Joe. I've heard the rally cries to move on from Doc, but I'm not sure this fan base has moved on from Snyder yet.

 

[pdbailey]

The use of "only" usually signifies a low or below average number. "Only" taking 6-7 NQs per year is a hell of a lot of NQs to take based on national average, G5 average, conference average, or any other comparison you'd like to view.



So right from the start, only about 55% of NQs stick around for at least 3 years. You claim that a "large portion" end up being starters. I don't know what a "large portion" is, but even if it's 75% of those 30, you're still only looking at about 23 of those 53 NQs becoming starters.

That's no way to succeed long term for a program.

The fact is that NQs only make up 20% of each recruiting class with just 53 of 260 recruits from 2010-2017 being NQs. Note that 23 of those 53 recruits were in the program for 4+ years, and most were multi-year starters, so they do not have a negative impact on the program when you consider the impact that many had on the field while in the program. Honestly, attrition has been the biggest blight on the program, especially with the 2012-2015 classes, and the retention rate for the other recruits in the 2010-2017 classes is only 48%. At least with the NQs, we were able to land recruits we normally wouldn't, and have had quite a few that made big impacts on the field for us. I'm fine with us taking 5-6 in each recruiting class if we can get NQs that are better than the other recruits we could get with those spots.

 

[sportsphantom1]

I wasn't around for the "Snyder Years," but this board talks more about those glory days than the Penn State board talks about Joe. I've heard the rally cries to move on from Doc, but I'm not sure this fan base has moved on from Snyder yet.

LOL the Snyder years were not glory days. Snyder was a bad coach that had some talent on his teams yet always under performed. Comparing Doc to him is a way for fans to talk about which coach was worse. If fans want to talk about glory days you will hear coaches Pruett and Donnan mentioned

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

The fact is that NQs only make up 20% of each recruiting class with just 53 of 260 recruits from 2010-2017 being NQs.
.

According to your numbers, 53 have been non-qualifiers over 8 classes. That's an average of just under 7 per class. If 23 of 53 have not left the program prematurely, as you stated, you're looking at a 43% retention rate.

If retention is already a major problem with the program, why does Marshall continue to recruit non-qualifiers, a group that historically has a very high retention rate? Doing that, as your own numbers show, leads to an even lower retention rate.

Are almost all of the NQ guys more talented than others we would have signed at that position? Of course. But taking them is a drain on resources. You don't get them for at least a year. That not only hurts immediate depth, but it also means you have a kid who hasn't played in a year.

It also means you lose out on the option for him to play up to four games as a redshirt year, so you lose yet more opportunity at development. Programs don't have unlimited tutors. Your academic support team spends a substantial amount of time with NQs due to them already showing that academics is a struggle.

I'm guessing non-qualifiers tend to have more off-field issues than other athletes. Which players have had the most egregious off-field issues under Doc? Butler, Grooms, and Lang? Of those, at least the first two were non-qualifiers.

I support taking non-qualifiers when they are kids who have the character, desire, and ability to succeed in college. That isn't the case when you're taking 7 NQs every year.

There is a reason why many conferences either don't allow them or have a tight restriction on the number you can take. Marshall has neither. Their retention issue has a lot to do with that.