Question about '14: Would it have helped to have lost to SDSU?

[TarHeelNation11]

Not going to make this a poll; just going to make it a general discussion.

I was thinking about last season and, specifically, the way the season played out. The warning signs were very evident even in the first game, when we had trouble stopping Liberty's offense. The warning signs were REALLY there during the San Diego State game. In reality, we lost the game -- or at least, should have. Their decision to throw the ball from the 1 or 2 yard line was pretty dang dumb. But T. Scott (?) made a good play on the ball and we consoled ourselves by saying "SDSU is really good for a G5 team...I bet they'll run the table the rest of the way." They didn't. They finished 7-6. And we said "Hey, we're ranked #21 [LOL] and we're 2-0. On to the next game! We'll show ECU a thing or two after last year's game!"

Fourteen days later, we lost 70-41. Seventy. Then we lost again. This time giving up SIX TD passes to a freshman QB in his first-ever start. Six. Then we lost again. Then we lost again. And the season was pretty much a free fall from there except for the GT surprise, the Pitt comeback, and the Duke beatdown.

So anyway, I pose the question to y'all, do you think it would've helped the team to have lost to San Diego State? Sounds crazy, maybe, but perhaps losing at home, at night, to a G5 opponent, when ranked #21, would've been the catalyst needed to get everyone to buy in and pay extra attention to VK's goofy 4-2-5 six-reads-per-play teachings in practice. Maybe during the following bye week, the team would've had a players-only "come to Jesus" meeting where they pledged to right the ship and get after it. Maybe we would've come out FIRED UP in G-Vegas and kicked the tar out of ECU. Maybe we would've put up a better fight against Clemson. Maybe that ref in South Bend finds his balls and doesn't give in to Brian Kelly's whining and pleading for a call. Maybe, just maybe?

Or....do y'all think last season's team was doomed from the start, and winning or losing against SDSU wouldn't have made a difference? I'm honestly not sure which way I'm leaning on this. What say you?

 

[jcolucci]

Doomed from the start and with no chance of recovery...however each potential win represented risk of prolonging our mediocrity. Thank goodness we lost more and got rid of VK and others and that's all that matters to me. I got blasted on this board for wishing losses upon us last year but we desperately needed to make changes. I'm still not sold on Fedora but he gets the benefit of doubt due to scholly constraints and making the changes that were made post-season. Hoping we can show some promise this year but to be honest, I'm not expecting too much.

 

[WoadBlue]

Not going to make this a poll; just going to make it a general discussion.

I was thinking about last season and, specifically, the way the season played out. The warning signs were very evident even in the first game, when we had trouble stopping Liberty's offense. The warning signs were REALLY there during the San Diego State game. In reality, we lost the game -- or at least, should have. Their decision to throw the ball from the 1 or 2 yard line was pretty dang dumb. But T. Scott (?) made a good play on the ball and we consoled ourselves by saying "SDSU is really good for a G5 team...I bet they'll run the table the rest of the way." They didn't. They finished 7-6. And we said "Hey, we're ranked #21 [LOL] and we're 2-0. On to the next game! We'll show ECU a thing or two after last year's game!"

Fourteen days later, we lost 70-41. Seventy. Then we lost again. This time giving up SIX TD passes to a freshman QB in his first-ever start. Six. Then we lost again. Then we lost again. And the season was pretty much a free fall from there except for the GT surprise, the Pitt comeback, and the Duke beatdown.

So anyway, I pose the question to y'all, do you think it would've helped the team to have lost to San Diego State? Sounds crazy, maybe, but perhaps losing at home, at night, to a G5 opponent, when ranked #21, would've been the catalyst needed to get everyone to buy in and pay extra attention to VK's goofy 4-2-5 six-reads-per-play teachings in practice. Maybe during the following bye week, the team would've had a players-only "come to Jesus" meeting where they pledged to right the ship and get after it. Maybe we would've come out FIRED UP in G-Vegas and kicked the tar out of ECU. Maybe we would've put up a better fight against Clemson. Maybe that ref in South Bend finds his balls and doesn't give in to Brian Kelly's whining and pleading for a call. Maybe, just maybe?

Or....do y'all think last season's team was doomed from the start, and winning or losing against SDSU wouldn't have made a difference? I'm honestly not sure which way I'm leaning on this. What say you?

I say doomed from the start. The D was way behind any schedule to get on track - it needed another Spring, and that one a merciless boot camp like Bear Bryant's Junction Boys endured. It was an awful D with no fundamentals and probably with deep and wide attitude issues. No early oss would have changed that. The offense was a 1 Trick Pony: Williams called run between the tackles, Williams can't find a receiver (though there almost always was at least one of them open) and runs.

Put the 2 together, and 6 Ws was expected and possibly fortunate.

 

[Realfreedom]

Last year was tough, but we now have an upgraded coaching staff. Hopefully that will lead to getting some big nasties at the Hill. The only direction from here is up.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Last year was tough, but we now have an upgraded coaching staff. Hopefully that will lead to getting some big nasties at the Hill. The only direction from here is up.

I agree, but that's not really what the thread asks!

 

[UNC71-00]

No- a close win against SDSU should have been enough of a wake up call. Losing to them wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[franklin street]

"the only thing you learn by losing is how to lose". j wooden

 

[TarHeelNation11]

"the only thing you learn by losing is how to lose". j wooden

Not sure I buy that completely.

 

[jcolucci]

Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war. - Donald Trump

 

[WoadBlue]

Not sure I buy that completely.

Some people do not learn anything from losing. But the smartest do.

As our 2014 D was the antithesis of smart, I am confident it would not have learned anything from any loss.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Some people do not learn anything from losing. But the smartest do.

As our 2014 D was the antithesis of smart, I am confident it would not have learned anything from any loss.

True. The only way to fix the disconnect between the scheme, the players, and VK was to let all the players go or let VK go. Pretty glad they chose the latter haha.

 

[Raising Heel]

No- a close win against SDSU should have been enough of a wake up call. Losing to them wouldn't have made any difference.

I was thinking the same thing. You could also have said that about a number of games from the previous season including the ugly loss to ECU, the inability to put away a really bad Moo team, etc. The worst thing to happen to this program in 2013 was that they played a string of teams with even more deficiencies than them. That string of wins, as enjoyable as it was, provided a false sense that they were better than they were.

 

[UNC71-00]

Has VK gotten another DC job? I really want to see if his hair-brained scheme works at another school.

 

[HookUNC75]

Has VK gotten another DC job? I really want to see if his hair-brained scheme works at another school.

I'm pretty sure he took the DC job at Troy University.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I'm pretty sure he took the DC job at Troy University.

Correct.

And @UNC71-00 the scheme itself isn't hair-brained. I mean Patterson runs it pretty well at TCU. Maybe Vic just teaches a weird version of it.

All that being said though, it seems like CFB has figured out the 4-2-5. Auburn's defense was miserable last year and they get the D-Line studs to make that defense theoretically work. I mean, damn, Carl Lawson is probably the best D-Lineman in the country and their defense still sucked under that scheme.

 

[UNC71-00]

If it were that good of a base defense, you would see at least one NFL team use it for at least one game. The fact that Auburn couldn't do it is a great example.

Did VK run it at Clemson?

 

[gunslingerdick]

Completely agree with 71-00. The fact that we needed a last play INT in the endzone to NOT LOSE...at home...to a below average team is pretty much the same thing as a loss. I get the point of the question but any coach worth his salt should not base success on just winning and losing. In other words, if any of our coaches were "proud" of winning that game, that tells you all you need to know about why we sucked. But I'm sure that despite the win, the staff new we weren't any good.

 

[Raising Heel]

If it were that good of a base defense, you would see at least one NFL team use it for at least one game. The fact that Auburn couldn't do it is a great example.

Eh. The difference in offensive schemes between the NFL and college has a lot to do with that. VT and FSU have had success with it, as have TCU, LSU, and a handful of others. In essence, the 4-2-5 isn't wildly different than a nickel package. I do despise the undersized DE though.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Eh. The difference in offensive schemes between the NFL and college has a lot to do with that. VT and FSU have had success with it, as have TCU, LSU, and a handful of others. In essence, the 4-2-5 isn't wildly different than a nickel package. I do despise the undersized DE though.

VT has had some undersized DEs that were monsters throughout their college careers and they weren't all that highly rated coming out of high school (Corey Moore, Cornell Brown, etc). But Bud Foster is a defensive genius. That alone should support the claim that it's not necessarily the scheme as it is how the coaching staff can get the players to buy in.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

^ yes, the degree to which the defensive players didn't buy in last year is a bit alarming. Sends alarm bells about possible character issue (I'm saying this with zero inside knowledge of the locker room, so take it with a truckload of salt). I get that it's difficult to buy in to a scheme that's making you look like a pee wee team on national TV every week, but.........to a man, pretty much all defensive players interviewed during Spring Ball said the same thing more or less: "Chizik/Scott/Papuchis/Warren are great coaches to play for, with a good pedigree, and we (the players) are ready to learn and do what they teach us."

That's all well and good, and it may not even matter now that we have new coaches in place, but those comments are a double-edged sword. Basically means they didn't buy in to VK's system and weren't ready to learn/practice/retain the teachings of VK, Disch, etc. That could be me reading too much into it though.

 

[gunslingerdick]

^ yes, the degree to which the defensive players didn't buy in last year is a bit alarming. Sends alarm bells about possible character issue (I'm saying this with zero inside knowledge of the locker room, so take it with a truckload of salt). I get that it's difficult to buy in to a scheme that's making you look like a pee wee team on national TV every week, but.........to a man, pretty much all defensive players interviewed during Spring Ball said the same thing more or less: "Chizik/Scott/Papuchis/Warren are great coaches to play for, with a good pedigree, and we (the players) are ready to learn and do what they teach us."

That's all well and good, and it may not even matter now that we have new coaches in place, but those comments are a double-edged sword. Basically means they didn't buy in to VK's system and weren't ready to learn/practice/retain the teachings of VK, Disch, etc. That could be me reading too much into it though.

I don't read too much into it because I think it's just players looking for an excuse as to why they performed so poorly last year. Time will tell.

 

[UNC_Blue]

The only game we "lost" by winning, was the Miami game that let lil dickie unfire Bunting.

 

[Raising Heel]

The only game we "lost" by winning, was the Miami game that let lil dickie unfire Bunting.

Truth.

But at least that set up perfect timing to hire Butch Davis, which led to ... oh crap. Never mind.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

The only game we "lost" by winning, was the Miami game that let lil dickie unfire Bunting.

Should have never been in the damn position in the first place because Bunting (and Torbush) should never have been hired. After effing up the Mack Brown thing, Baddour still could've saved face by hiring *any* of the good candidates who were lining up (Richt, cough). But no.....he ultimately ends up giving a long tenure to a dude who had never coached in college and sucked here, yet was given a pass for years and years and years, setting this program back a decade.

Now I'm pissed, all over again

 

[ball4me2]

Should have never been in the damn position in the first place because Bunting (and Torbush) should never have been hired. After effing up the Mack Brown thing, Baddour still could've saved face by hiring *any* of the good candidates who were lining up (Richt, cough). But no.....he ultimately ends up giving a long tenure to a dude who had never coached in college and sucked here, yet was given a pass for years and years and years, setting this program back a decade.

Now I'm pissed, all over again

You Sir are ABSOLUTELY correct!