They hired a Fuente, and they're a bigger football brand than we are.
Two things you'd change about this football team
- Thread starter gteeitup
- Start date
because some think it's either fedora or bunting, which is freakin asinine...it's not like that at all.
maybe it's becoming that at carolina, though...when i hear/read some on here not expecting a really good to great program, it could be headed that way...and that's okay, too.
Then we agree. I don't know if we'll ever be great in football but we can certainly consistently field a team that has a good chance of winning our division and playing for the ACCC.
Surely you don't think that we can't attract a coach of his stature? Someone like Mike Norvell perhaps?
"So, you don't know then. I'm a firm believer in not firing a coach unless you have someone better lined up. There is no reason to fire Fedora right now, because of that."
So you believe in going behind a coach's back and getting a silent verbal from another coach before firing the current coach? That seems very underhanded to me.
BTW, what are your responses to the questions I posed above?
So you believe in going behind a coach's back and getting a silent verbal from another coach before firing the current coach? That seems very underhanded to me.
BTW, what are your responses to the questions I posed above?
Get it and go!!!
i.e., get the ball and go!!!
Or ... defense and offense ..... will always win!!!!
IIRC, we just extended it thru '22. The offer still stands.
I'm sure it does. With Feds contract extension, he's not going anywhere for at least a couple more years.
I'd welcome your response to the 3 questions I posed. THN11 doesn't seem to want to respond. I think I know why, he'd probably have to answer no to all 3 of he's honest with himself.
Compared to the end of his first year the answer is yes to everything except playing hard. Compared to the end of last year I would say no, however I reserve the right to change my answer after the season is over.
Or maybe I just have a life and didn't make it a priority to come back here and answer your questions. You already showed your ignorance by insinuating Fuente is a better hire, based on reputation and accomplishments, than Fedora was. Hint: Fedora accomplished more than Fuente did before both each was hired by UNC and VT, respectively.
Kind of hard to judge now considering Fuente hasn't even been there long enough to finishing unpacking.
Hilarious. I see what you did. Your question is rhetorical as you know VT, overall, has been a better program since Mack left.
Fuentes will prove to be a much better hire and I think you know it. I said nothing about reputation or accomplishments. And you still haven't answered my questions, genius.
I think that's hard to say. Fuente had the benefit of inheriting one of the best defensive coaching staffs in the country. It's hard to value that kind of stability and experience. For what it's worth Koenning and Chizik arrived at UNC with outstanding credentials.
These aren't simple yes or no questions. There is a full spectrum of available answers between "yes, absolutely" and "no, never." They're all valid criticisms of Fedora, but every other coach in the country falls somewhere on the spectrum relative to him. Could we hire somebody who was better in all three? Or two of the three?
Fuente was basically the exact same hire coming out of Memphis that Fedora was coming out of Southern Miss. Virtually identical records and accomplishments. Fuente had the advantage of going to a school with one of the best defensive infrastructures in the country in place, not to mention no NCAA mess to deal with. Both won the Coastal in their first year in the ACC. LF has another under his belt. Time will tell but basically your argument is complete garbage at this point.
It's my opinion. There's no way of knowing if it will prove true or false. If you disagree, fine. Just say so.
You have been stating it as if it is indisputable fact. Don't try and back down now.
I agree with the crux of this. Things are rarely black and white.
We shall see if Fed's most ardent supporters feel the same in 3-4 more years. I've lost confidence in the man.
Most of the opinions on this site are stated matter of factly. Surely you don't expect every opinion to be prefaced by "IMO" or "I think"? If you disagree, just say so. Don't be a jerk.
I'm disappointed to hear that, but I understand why.
It takes a rare breed of coach to elevate a program to the upper echelon of college football -- say Top 25 -- and keep them there. If we were to look at every head coach over the last 20 years, how many of them have had teams consistently finish the season ranked? It's probably a very short list.
I've come to terms that Fed isn't one of those guys even though he might get us there from time to time. Truth be told, I'm also holding a sliver of hope that things will actually get better. I keep thinking about how Clemson got absolutely hammered by WVU in the 2012 Orange Bowl only to win a national championship 5 years later. That loss was the impetus to hire a first-rate DC in Venables. Again, Koenning, Chizik, and even Papuchis all arrived well-regarded. If we can figure out that side of the ball, our offenses and special teams have been solid.
But it does not have to be that way, and before Torbush, it was not that way.
We should be able to find the right coach who can turn things around, in a big way. UNC football is not Indiana football.
I think I'd take a hammering in the Orange Bowl, because that would mean that we got to the Orange Bowl.
And the hammering we took from Baylor would be OK if we were showing signs of having grown from that, getting better after that embarrassing bowl loss. But we are not.
I think d00k is going to kick our rear this weekend and do it with inferior talent. I really hope I'm wrong.
When I saw this schedule, with Dook so early, earlier than ever, my first thought was: well, at least we should still be relatively healthy and able to handle the Dookies. Now, I fear we lose, perhaps by 3 scores.
1. Fewer injuries
2. I'd say a new DC, but if Fedora is doing the hiring, we'll just get the same 'ole mess. So, instead, I'll say fewer injuries. We are handicapped by our coaching, so might as well have our best personnel on the field to mitigate that as much as possible.
2. I'd say a new DC, but if Fedora is doing the hiring, we'll just get the same 'ole mess. So, instead, I'll say fewer injuries. We are handicapped by our coaching, so might as well have our best personnel on the field to mitigate that as much as possible.
The thought of the Victory Bell remaining navy blue and white for another year is galling.
We're not even remotely healthy for this game. Could be down 4 starters on the offensive line from where we were coming out of fall practice. That's to say nothing of the numerous injuries at other position groups.
Your #2 makes the same point I've made before. Somewhere, I responded that someone was missing the point about Fedora and hiring new assistants, and as I have no longer have any idea where that is, I'll try to make the point more clear here.
Let's use the example of an MLB GM. Let's say this GM has developed his own 'moneyball,' of which he is extremely proud. His moneyball is all about baseball offense: he is certain that if he can get the right players, with the right power and right team batting average, and have them batting in the best order, then his team can make the World series. And indeed, he gets top offensive talent.
But the team can't get over the hump. Fans demand a new pitching coach, A few also assert that a new coach to focus on fielding is required.
None of those proposals will ever amount to anything until such time as the GM changes his views, because to him, his 'moneyball' system is simply wonderful, and he knows that to fulfill his 'moneyball,' the franchise must focus as close to 100% as possible on its features - which do not include major focus on the defensive side of baseball.
Fedora, it seems to me, is all about his offense. Everything proceeds from his offense. He will hire new coaches on D who seem to him as likely fits with his offense.
I doubt that replacing Papuchis or the entire D staff would avail much.
Perhaps Fedora is rethinking even as I type. And perhaps that rethinking will lead to a stronger program. But my guess is that the odds are that Fedora is dead set on going down with the ship of his offense and how he wants it run.His vision as a football coach is bound fully to his system of offense.
don't even think about it...i'm already imagining not watching it go across the field.
Fed's record vs ACC teams:
Atlantic Division
BC 1-0
Clemson 0-2
FSU 1-0
Louisville 0-2
NVSU 3-2
Syracuse 0-0
Wake 1-1
Coastal Division
d00k 2-3
GT 3-2
Miami 3-2
Pitt 4-0
UVA 5-0
VT 2-3
ND 0-1
vs Atlantic 6-7
vs Coastal 18-10
vs ACC 24-17
ETA amend d00k record.
Atlantic Division
BC 1-0
Clemson 0-2
FSU 1-0
Louisville 0-2
NVSU 3-2
Syracuse 0-0
Wake 1-1
Coastal Division
d00k 2-3
GT 3-2
Miami 3-2
Pitt 4-0
UVA 5-0
VT 2-3
ND 0-1
vs Atlantic 6-7
vs Coastal 18-10
vs ACC 24-17
ETA amend d00k record.
Last edited:
I don't be see anything out of the ordinary there except 1-3 to freaking dook. Sad.
He's 2-3 against dook. Fedora has been head coach at UNC for 5 years, meaning his record against every Coastal team should add up to 5 games except for Pitt which didn't join the ACC until 2013. Should also be noted that the 2012 loss to Louisville was when the Cards were a member of the Big East.
ETA: Interesting that Fed has winning records against Moo U and every Coastal team except dook (surprising) and VT (not surprising).
You're right, thanks. No excuse for having a losing record against d00k, none. We routinely have more talent.
My fear is that VT and Miami are both going to get significantly better under their new coaches and our chances of winning our division are going to significantly decrease. Both of those programs have declined in recent years.
Similar threads
