EagleOutsider.com

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:Let's make the whole team transgender. Some things are much more important than winning football games.

I don't have any coaching experience

Logitano {l Wrote}:
So is Jarmond trolling EO or confirming the power of the Nexus by so prominently displaying netjets?

MJ's answers in that press conf suggest someone who is low-bullshit and not afraid of critical or difficult opinions. Whether or not he has actually read any of the posts here, he has clearly witnessed and acknowledged the slice of our fandom that casts the long shadow of the nexus.

What a breath of fresh air ...

hansen {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:The Eagle HC has landed in Chestnut Hill.

I think I'll wait for Dooder to start a thread before believing this.

this was really well done

nice to see it piss off some of the puscadore alums too

claver2010 {l Wrote}:nice to see it piss off some of the puscadore alums too

I missed this ... details?

TontoKowalski {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}:nice to see it piss off some of the puscadore alums too

I missed this ... details?

bitching about bc using a private jet

it not reflecting jesuit values, poor use of $ when people are spending $70k a year to go to bc, etc. etc.

Is there any confirmation that the pilots of the NetJets charter are trans? This is important because historically trannies are not flying a lot of planes and that is wrong. Keep them off the coaching staffs, but do put them in the cockpits.

claver2010 {l Wrote}:

TontoKowalski {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}:nice to see it piss off some of the puscadore alums too

I missed this ... details?

bitching about bc using a private jet

it not reflecting jesuit values, poor use of $ when people are spending $70k a year to go to bc, etc. etc.

OMG... those are posts from folks who don't understand the importance of time. Those Warren-lovers view things like private jets as some sort of luxury... when it is more necessity given the constraints of time on busy people.

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:

durkcal {l Wrote}:The staff I'd like to see is:

Chris Kiffin - DC (49ers pass rush specialist, Lane's brother! I think he would revitalize our pass rush and recruit well, Recruiting Coord at Ole Miss)
Mike McDaniel - OC/WR (49 ers Run game Coord, former NFL WR coach, He probably knows a ton about good offensive structure from Shanahan, but doesn't have chance to call plays there)
Antoine Smith - DL coach
Ricky Brown -ST/OLB
Matt Thurin - LB - (Def QC coach at Ohio State, from Ohio, has coached in Ivy league)
Phil Trautwein - OL
Eric Lewis - DB (Hafley will be for the most part coaching DB's anyway)
Katie Sowers - TE (First female coach in FBS football, BC is a trendsetter!)
Bobby Slowik - RB (49ers off asst)
Chandler Whittmer - QB (Ohio State grad asst, played QB at UConn)

There are a few other 49er coaches I would have interest in, and of course Al Washington. But I'll take Kiffin over Al

By the way, that Browns staff Hafley was on under Mike Pettine was awful. With the benefit of hindsight, a coaching staff tells you so much!!

There is a lot of dumb in this post, but keeping three staffers from the worst D in BC history might be the most glaring,

This. I hope Gunnell stays, but that’s about it.

Im so, so focused on the OC and QB coach. We really haven't had anything resembling passing game development in this program since Steve Logan.

For everything I hated about Steve Addazio, it was his refusal to develop a passing game that sunk him and will always make him mediocre. We need to develop passers in this program. It is not a coincidence that BC's run has been propelled by QB play from Foley to Hasselbecks to PP to Ryan - QB play that kept us in most games for years.

Everything is about recruiting a QB and putting in an offense that maximizes that position. You win nothing behind a running game in college football.

Thornton Melon {l Wrote}:Im so, so focused on the OC and QB coach. We really haven't had anything resembling passing game development in this program since Steve Logan.

For everything I hated about Steve Addazio, it was his refusal to develop a passing game that sunk him and will always make him mediocre. We need to develop passers in this program. It is not a coincidence that BC's run has been propelled by QB play from Foley to Hasselbecks to PP to Ryan - QB play that kept us in most games for years.

Everything is about recruiting a QB and putting in an offense that maximizes that position. You win nothing behind a running game in college football.

I think you can be a heavy run team but you still need an accurate QB that can make simple passes and hit wide open receivers. If you can’t at least threaten throwing the ball down field or hit simple routes, then you aren’t going to win. We haven’t had that QB since Murphy.

P.s. I can’t even imagine what Dillon would have put for stats if he wasn’t running into 8,9,10 man boxes

hansen {l Wrote}:

Thornton Melon {l Wrote}:Im so, so focused on the OC and QB coach. We really haven't had anything resembling passing game development in this program since Steve Logan.

For everything I hated about Steve Addazio, it was his refusal to develop a passing game that sunk him and will always make him mediocre. We need to develop passers in this program. It is not a coincidence that BC's run has been propelled by QB play from Foley to Hasselbecks to PP to Ryan - QB play that kept us in most games for years.

Everything is about recruiting a QB and putting in an offense that maximizes that position. You win nothing behind a running game in college football.

I think you can be a heavy run team but you still need an accurate QB that can make simple passes and hit wide open receivers. If you can’t at least threaten throwing the ball down field or hit simple routes, then you aren’t going to win. We haven’t had that QB since Murphy.

P.s. I can’t even imagine what Dillon would have put for stats if he wasn’t running into 8,9,10 man boxes

Given our demographics, I think its hard for BC to "chase systems". The kids at the highest level of any system likely aren't going to come here; we do our best when we turn that narrative on its head and build around the best of the kids that are going to come here. Historically, numbers give us more chances to score higher with dropback passers; but even that's somewhat untrue, as both Ryan and Hasslebeck could scramble enough to accelerate outta problems (think of Ryan's scramble before hucking to Dre Cal in VT's end zone).

Besides, teams can be better than individual excellence at a position provided we have coaching. Which we haven't really had in eleven years or so.

Thornton Melon {l Wrote}:Im so, so focused on the OC and QB coach. We really haven't had anything resembling passing game development in this program since Steve Logan.

For everything I hated about Steve Addazio, it was his refusal to develop a passing game that sunk him and will always make him mediocre.

I don't think so.

Personally, I think it was more that Addazio never went better than 4-4 in the ACC in a single year. He was mediocre (at best), horrible at worst. He was never good, not in 7 years, probably not in 17 years either.

Running the ball (or should I say, never establishing a passing game) wouldn't have mattered if running the ball wins the games. Forget the Kansas disaster. If BC had beaten Wake Forest and Florida State this year (they should have) and had gone 6-2 in conference (that was possible given how shitty the Atlantic division was this year outside of Clemson) not only would Addazio NOT have been fired, the team would have finished 8-4, they would have finished at about 24th or 25th best in the country (which might be all Jarmond is looking for), and Addazio would have had his contract extended another year. I truly believe that.

Do not get me wrong. I'm happy that he is gone but not because Addazio never developed much of a passing game. I don't give a fuck if they never throw the ball in 12 games as long as they win all 12 of those games. In that sense, Addazio didn't get it done (and never did.) That is the reason why he is gone.

Thornton Melon {l Wrote}:We need to develop passers in this program. It is not a coincidence that BC's run has been propelled by QB play from Foley to Hasselbecks to PP to Ryan - QB play that kept us in most games for years.

Everything is about recruitinga QB and putting in an offense that maximizes that position. You win nothing behind a running game in college football.

FYP.

You are correct though. I totally agree. Everything is about recruiting. Lets hope that Hafley does a significantly better job in that department.

innocentbystander {l Wrote}:

Thornton Melon {l Wrote}:Im so, so focused on the OC and QB coach. We really haven't had anything resembling passing game development in this program since Steve Logan.

For everything I hated about Steve Addazio, it was his refusal to develop a passing game that sunk him and will always make him mediocre.

I don't think so.

Personally, I think it was more that Addazio never went better than 4-4 in the ACC in a single year. He was mediocre (at best), horrible at worst. He was never good, not in 7 years, probably not in 17 years either.

Running the ball (or should I say, never establishing a passing game) wouldn't have mattered if running the ball wins the games. Forget the Kansas disaster. If BC had beaten Wake Forest and Florida State this year (they should have) and had gone 6-2 in conference (that was possible given how shitty the Atlantic division was this year outside of Clemson) not only would Addazio NOT have been fired, the team would have finished 8-4, they would have finished at about 24th or 25th best in the country (which might be all Jarmond is looking for), and Addazio would have had his contract extended another year. I truly believe that.

Do not get me wrong. I'm happy that he is gone but not because Addazio never developed much of a passing game. I don't give a fuck if they never throw the ball in 12 games as long as they win all 12 of those games. In that sense, Addazio didn't get it done (and never did.) That is the reason why he is gone.

Thornton Melon {l Wrote}:We need to develop passers in this program. It is not a coincidence that BC's run has been propelled by QB play from Foley to Hasselbecks to PP to Ryan - QB play that kept us in most games for years.

Everything is about recruitinga QB and putting in an offense that maximizes that position. You win nothing behind a running game in college football.

FYP.

You are correct though. I totally agree. Everything is about recruiting. Lets hope that Hafley does a significantly better job in that department.

Exclusively running the ball without any threat whatsoever of the pass doesn't win games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHDwmoLGYh8
Interesting short interview with Jarmond that discusses an assistant pool and specifically letting the administration know that we need to show greater financial commitment if we want to achieve the goals we say we do.

31southst {l Wrote}:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHDwmoLGYh8
Interesting short interview with Jarmond that discusses an assistant pool and specifically letting the administration know that we need to show greater financial commitment if we want to achieve the goals we say we do.

that was a really encouraging interview, thanks

StratEagle {l Wrote}:

innocentbystander {l Wrote}:

Thornton Melon {l Wrote}:Im so, so focused on the OC and QB coach. We really haven't had anything resembling passing game development in this program since Steve Logan.

For everything I hated about Steve Addazio, it was his refusal to develop a passing game that sunk him and will always make him mediocre.

I don't think so.

Personally, I think it was more that Addazio never went better than 4-4 in the ACC in a single year. He was mediocre (at best), horrible at worst. He was never good, not in 7 years, probably not in 17 years either.

Running the ball (or should I say, never establishing a passing game) wouldn't have mattered if running the ball wins the games. Forget the Kansas disaster. If BC had beaten Wake Forest and Florida State this year (they should have) and had gone 6-2 in conference (that was possible given how shitty the Atlantic division was this year outside of Clemson) not only would Addazio NOT have been fired, the team would have finished 8-4, they would have finished at about 24th or 25th best in the country (which might be all Jarmond is looking for), and Addazio would have had his contract extended another year. I truly believe that.

Do not get me wrong. I'm happy that he is gone but not because Addazio never developed much of a passing game. I don't give a fuck if they never throw the ball in 12 games as long as they win all 12 of those games. In that sense, Addazio didn't get it done (and never did.) That is the reason why he is gone.

Thornton Melon {l Wrote}:We need to develop passers in this program. It is not a coincidence that BC's run has been propelled by QB play from Foley to Hasselbecks to PP to Ryan - QB play that kept us in most games for years.

Everything is about recruitinga QB and putting in an offense that maximizes that position. You win nothing behind a running game in college football.

FYP.

You are correct though. I totally agree. Everything is about recruiting. Lets hope that Hafley does a significantly better job in that department.

Exclusively running the ball without any threat whatsoever of the pass doesn't win games.

Agreed. I'd say that is right 99% of the time. But Nebraska proved (TWICE in the mid 1990s) that you can not only win games (but national championships) doing nothing on offense other than running the ball.

That said, we just want to win. I don't think anyone here cares how it is done, so long as Hafley wins.

Based on things I've read and seen about Hafley, notably Sherman's comments, I think the thing I'm most excited about is he is obviously a guy who is going to watch an immense amount of tape. One of the things I got from interviews of players -- both OSU and the pros -- is that he builds bonds with players by showing them he's seen all their plays and then teaches off that. And since that's with every player, they realize very quickly he's deeply invested in them. Furthermore, he strikes me as a guy who actually knows how to look at tape and distill it. He's going to get buy in from the players right from the jump.

claver2010 {l Wrote}:

31southst {l Wrote}:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHDwmoLGYh8
Interesting short interview with Jarmond that discusses an assistant pool and specifically letting the administration know that we need to show greater financial commitment if we want to achieve the goals we say we do.

that was a really encouraging interview, thanks

Going back to TOB, BC coordinators have always been paid quite well. Bible and Spaz... Logan and Spaz... McGovern and Martin... Brown and HCRD... Reid and Loeffler... Bajakian and Sheridan. I think the only drop-off might be for position coaches. That said, JB3 got paid... Paul P was one of the highest paid DL coaches around... I'm sure tenured guys like White and Leonard are paid. Look back over our history, our assistant coaches have mostly been excellent. It was only at the very last season of Spaz where things were getting questionable.

The BC is cheap think is more a meme than truth. The only time I think it is correct is when BC won't pay a coach to leave. Bottom line is that I think we are generally market rate on coaches... we can extend beyond that for a select few (e.g. I'm sure we'd pay up if Wannstedt wanted to leave the NFL booth). However, we don't always make the best hires and we won't pay-up to quickly move from a mistake.

HJS {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}:

31southst {l Wrote}:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHDwmoLGYh8
Interesting short interview with Jarmond that discusses an assistant pool and specifically letting the administration know that we need to show greater financial commitment if we want to achieve the goals we say we do.

that was a really encouraging interview, thanks

Going back to TOB, BC coordinators have always been paid quite well. Bible and Spaz... Logan and Spaz... McGovern and Martin... Brown and HCRD... Reid and Loeffler... Bajakian and Sheridan. I think the only drop-off might be for position coaches. That said, JB3 got paid... Paul P was one of the highest paid DL coaches around... I'm sure tenured guys like White and Leonard are paid. Look back over our history, our assistant coaches have mostly been excellent. It was only at the very last season of Spaz where things were getting questionable.

The BC is cheap think is more a meme than truth. The only time I think it is correct is when BC won't pay a coach to leave. Bottom line is that I think we are generally market rate on coaches... we can extend beyond that for a select few (e.g. I'm sure we'd pay up if Wannstedt wanted to leave the NFL booth). However, we don't always make the best hires and we won't pay-up to quickly move from a mistake.

maybe back in the day but i think it's clearly an area bc got lapped over the last decade.

how much do you think reid & crew were paid when brown left for michigan ($1 MM / year)?

edit: bc also really needs to up the academic support for athletes, which given the academic rigors the athletes go through is really unacceptable

claver2010 {l Wrote}:maybe back in the day but i think it's clearly an area bc got lapped over the last decade.

how much do you think reid & crew were paid when brown left for michigan ($1 MM / year)?

edit: bc also really needs to up the academic support for athletes, which given the academic rigors the athletes go through is really unacceptable

We get lapped by LSU and Bama and Clemson and OSU and MIchigan. Sure. We lap Rutgers and Wake and Duke and Vandy and Cuse. I'm not sure where you are going with this. I never claimed BC would be the top paying program... but we sure as hell ain't the cheapest. We pretty much pay middle of the road in the Power 5. That's not what is advertised. It is always packaged that we pay like we are in the MAC... and that simply isn't the case.

As for academic support, BC has it institutionalized and it is the envy of most schools. If you are talking about a system that does the kids papers for them, that will never BC... nor should it be.

I’ll catch criticism for this but whatever.

I think people really need to manage their expectations in Year 1 here. Completely new coaches and system including a roster that was built to a very specific system (see having about 15 TEs on the roster). It’s also his first HC job.

I think they’ll come on strong at the end of the season, but I could see some major speed bumps early. This roster is constructed weirdly and there is a serious lack of pure talent on D, especially on the DL and DB.

Bruce Arians, 2x NFL Coach of the Year, started 2-6 this year before ripping off 5 of 6.

HJS {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}:maybe back in the day but i think it's clearly an area bc got lapped over the last decade.

how much do you think reid & crew were paid when brown left for michigan ($1 MM / year)?

edit: bc also really needs to up the academic support for athletes, which given the academic rigors the athletes go through is really unacceptable

We get lapped by LSU and Bama and Clemson and OSU and MIchigan. Sure. We lap Rutgers and Wake and Duke and Vandy and Cuse. I'm not sure where you are going with this. I never claimed BC would be the top paying program... but we sure as hell ain't the cheapest. We pretty much pay middle of the road in the Power 5. That's not what is advertised. It is always packaged that we pay like we are in the MAC... and that simply isn't the case.

As for academic support, BC has it institutionalized and it is the envy of most schools. If you are talking about a system that does the kids papers for them, that will never BC... nor should it be.

I think you under estimate how difficult it is to play D1 football and actually go to class.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:I’ll catch criticism for this but whatever.

I think people really need to manage their expectations in Year 1 here. Completely new coaches and system including a roster that was built to a very specific system (see having about 15 TEs on the roster). It’s also his first HC job.

I think they’ll come on strong at the end of the season, but I could see some major speed bumps early. This roster is constructed weirdly and there is a serious lack of pure talent on D, especially on the DL and DB.

Bruce Arians, 2x NFL Coach of the Year, started 2-6 this year before ripping off 5 of 6.

There’s six TEs on the roster. There’s def some roster spacing issues but honestly a lot of this can be sorted out with transfers and redshirts if needed. I see 2 issues. The biggest roster one is the lack of talent at QB. Unless Sam Johnson is magically the answer, we really need a graduate transfer at the position. The other issue would be the defense but I’m hoping it will sort itself out with improved coaching and experience.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:I think you under estimate how difficult it is to play D1 football and actually go to class.

I get it. But, I also refuse to buy into the "Majoring in Football" mentality that others are quick to accept. That is what has led us to a point where kids need to be paid because, when they go to a factory, they are enrolling in a minor league system. The contrarian view is that their athletic services are being sold when they sign an LOI. Those services are repaid with in-kind currency in the form of access to an education. Depending on the school chosen, that access to an education is significantly more valuable than whatever $50k a year number a union would put on someone's football time.

To further the point, look at the recent scandal where the rich and famous pissed away hundreds of thousands of dollars to get their underperforming kids into some schools. That is just gaining acceptance... then, they paid full freight and probably donated even more for the opportunity. If you were to use that at as a benchmark, to get an unqualified kid into a school like USC and then spend 5 years there... that is a market value of about $700k (or $140k). If they chose a school like Bama which had low cost of attendance and no upfront cost for acceptance, you are talking about selling your services for roughly $200k. Now, there is ancillary value with being famous because you are on a successful team. However, I am not terribly sure of the monetary worth of Tua's famous name if he is never able to play football again.

Anyway... that's my rant. I hate the constant "we need to pay athletes" nonsense. We do pay them... just not in cash. The fact that they tend to sell their services to the lowest bidder and then fail to reap any value from the in-kind transfer is simply poor decision-making. But, I guess, in today's political environment, poor decisions are handsomely rewarded.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:I’ll catch criticism for this but whatever.

I think people really need to manage their expectations in Year 1 here. Completely new coaches and system including a roster that was built to a very specific system (see having about 15 TEs on the roster). It’s also his first HC job.

I think they’ll come on strong at the end of the season, but I could see some major speed bumps early. This roster is constructed weirdly and there is a serious lack of pure talent on D, especially on the DL and DB.

Bruce Arians, 2x NFL Coach of the Year, started 2-6 this year before ripping off 5 of 6.

There was a time when a post like this would cause me to want to point out your microdick. That time is still now. You have micropenis.

That out of the way, the qb question mark is substantial, but otherwise the offensive roster is sound at all areas other than wr (where it’s lacking but not as bad as usual). OL should be great again, rbs very good.

It’s not that the defense doesn’t have talent issues, but it was clearly much better with mcduffie back and the better dBs and he along with all contributors but Karafa and bergerson (and I guess yeargin) are returning. It’s not unreasonable to expect some underclassman to step up on the DL (sillah, ness, bono?). I also imagine there’s much room for schematic improvement considering how poor sheridan seemed to be.

That being said, I don’t know what expectations should be next year.

hansen {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:I’ll catch criticism for this but whatever.

I think people really need to manage their expectations in Year 1 here. Completely new coaches and system including a roster that was built to a very specific system (see having about 15 TEs on the roster). It’s also his first HC job.

I think they’ll come on strong at the end of the season, but I could see some major speed bumps early. This roster is constructed weirdly and there is a serious lack of pure talent on D, especially on the DL and DB.

Bruce Arians, 2x NFL Coach of the Year, started 2-6 this year before ripping off 5 of 6.

There’s six TEs on the roster. There’s def some roster spacing issues but honestly a lot of this can be sorted out with transfers and redshirts if needed. I see 2 issues. The biggest roster one is the lack of talent at QB. Unless Sam Johnson is magically the answer, we really need a graduate transfer at the position. The other issue would be the defense but I’m hoping it will sort itself out with improved coaching and experience.

QB is a mess, these WRs aside from Kobay are bad, the DL got nowhere near a QB and the secondary has a myriad of issues. Better coaching will help, but it may take some time to click.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:I’ll catch criticism for this but whatever.

I think people really need to manage their expectations in Year 1 here. Completely new coaches and system including a roster that was built to a very specific system (see having about 15 TEs on the roster). It’s also his first HC job.

I think they’ll come on strong at the end of the season, but I could see some major speed bumps early. This roster is constructed weirdly and there is a serious lack of pure talent on D, especially on the DL and DB.

Bruce Arians, 2x NFL Coach of the Year, started 2-6 this year before ripping off 5 of 6.

There was a time when a post like this would cause me to want to point out your microdick. That time is still now. You have micropenis.

That out of the way, the qb question mark is substantial, but otherwise the offensive roster is sound at all areas other than wr (where it’s lacking but not as bad as usual). OL should be great again, rbs very good.

It’s not that the defense doesn’t have talent issues, but it was clearly much better with mcduffie back and the better dBs and he along with all contributors but Karafa and bergerson (and I guess yeargin) are returning. It’s not unreasonable to expect some underclassman to step up on the DL (sillah, ness, bono?). I also imagine there’s much room for schematic improvement considering how poor sheridan seemed to be.

That being said, I don’t know what expectations should be next year.

BC gave up 59 to Clemson, 38 to a bad FSU offense and 40 to ND (with McDuffie). Pitt had a D2 offense. Even Saban can’t turn El Attrach, Palmer and Borgesen into good safeties.

This is going to take some time to click, then it’ll be beautiful.

Ryan Day said he would be shocked and surprised if Big Al wanted to leave for BC's D-coordinator job, but that he would support him if he did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqg9rYs7gwc

I expect 7-5 in year one. We definitely lack talent at critical positions, but the ACC is down and the OOC games are manageable. I think we will see substantial progress by year 3.

Go Eagles!

Eaglekeeper {l Wrote}:I expect 7-5 in year one. We definitely lack talent at critical positions, but the ACC is down and the OOC games are manageable. I think we will see substantial progress by year 3.

Go Eagles!

We can't win 7, anything but 7.