20 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

Balt Sun: Amid defeats and defections, Maryland football coach Mike Locksley stays on point with his message to recruits

[BSLMikeLowe]

USA Today: Other schools can learn from Oregon's hiring of Mario Cristobal

 

The biggest story of the college football season is that the man who built the nation’s No. 1 team failed so badly in his first go-around as a head coach that he could barely have imagined resurfacing years later with the keys to one of the nation’s Cadillac programs. 

If anyone can appreciate the trajectory Ed Orgeron’s career took from the humiliation at Ole Miss to a complete triumph at LSU, it’s Oregon’s Mario Cristobal.

Seven years ago, Cristobal’s career wasn’t on track to coach at a place like Oregon or contend for a national title as the 8-1 Ducks have done up to this point. In fact, two weeks after he had wrapped his sixth season at Florida International, Cristobal was one of 13 FBS coaches that year who was fired for losing too much.

 

​On one hand, here's proof that coaches can learn, improve and succeed after a poor showing in their first HC jobs.

 

On the other hand, neither of the coaches mentioned in this article....Ed Orgeron at Ole Miss and Cristobal at FIU....were anywhere near as disastrous in their first gigs as Locksley was at New Mexico.

 

So yeah, he probably doesn't apply here.

[JeremyStrain]

I really can't get over the people slamming Locks right now. The WHOLE reason he was brought in was because of his recruiting, which you aren't going to see results of until next season at the earliest. We are still in the fallout from the debacle period and when they didn't have a coach. The big recruits were already committed by the time Locks got the job. You gotta give him time to work and then you can judge how he's doing bringing in talent. ONCE he has the talent THEN you can judge him on how he coaches said talent.

 

People are like OMG, he's had a terrible season, lets fire him! He was always going to have a terrible season, he didn't have much of a team, and he's playing against some big teams.

 

It's like gutting the Orioles and then wanting to fire Elias after one season, cause he hasn't fixed everything somehow. Gotta give decisions like this a couple years, THEN you evaluate, THEN you make a decision.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I'm somewhere between Jer and the consensus here that Locks has failed miserably. I don't think he has. He is who I thought he was as a coach. And so far the recruiting seems to have hit a snag, probably to be expected if we were being more honest with ourselves about the impact losing McNair would have. I guess I'm just at a place where I knew I couldn't and don't expect much in the next few years. I've just accepted that, and hope Locksley can at a minimum, build some great recruiting relationships for the longterm.

[JeremyStrain]

I'm somewhere between Jer and the consensus here that Locks has failed miserably. I don't think he has. He is who I thought he was as a coach. And so far the recruiting seems to have hit a snag, probably to be expected if we were being more honest with ourselves about the impact losing McNair would have. I guess I'm just at a place where I knew I couldn't and don't expect much in the next few years. I've just accepted that, and hope Locksley can at a minimum, build some great recruiting relationships for the longterm.

 

Yeah I mean that decommit at halftime of the game Sat was kinda brutal, but honestly, do you want a little a-hole that's going to make a big production like that? I mean I hope he gets there some big fish and we never hear of him again, cause me-first people like that are the worst. There were 1000 other ways he could have handled that, but announcing it on Twitter and making a statement out of it, that's just immature as hell.

 

I think overall he will still do well. He will get a good chunk of the Dematha kids, and he's got ins all over.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Lox will recruit.  No doubt there. 

In-terms of his coaching ability...His horrible tenure at New Mexico means nothing to me. 
His success at Alabama means little to me either. 

He wants the job. Players like him. He has relationships. 

He has to further build out his staff. 

 

There is enough talent on the current roster, they should be better (certainly more competitive) than they have been. 

 

The issues on the lines (particularly the Dline this year... starting in the preseason with the injuries, departures, etc) really exposed the team. 

 

The years and years without any consistency in the passing game are pathetic. Definitely thought Jackson (after what he did at VaTech) would be better (league average) than he has been. 

LeGendre was a major recruit. Maybe it works out with him. 

 

- Recruit recruit recruit.  Starting within 2 hours of CP.  
- Get some more transfers and grad transfers. 
- Build the lines. 
- Improve the Coaching staff. 
- Figure out what you are going to do with the large disparities in program spending between Maryland and every other B10 team.

[BSLMikeLowe]

There is enough talent on the current roster, they should be better (certainly more competitive) than they have been. 

 

This is where I am with it. Despite all the tragedy and turmoil of last season, an interim coach had that team just a two-point conversion away from stunning Ohio State and being bowl eligible.

 

Yes, several important players from that team are gone. But some players with proven FBS track records were added via transfer. All-in-all, it seems like a wash in terms of talent level. So what's different this season? What made Josh Jackson, supposedly the most promising QB MD has had in over a decade, go from a very competent QB into someone who's had inexplicable turnovers and can't complete half his pass attempts?

[You Play to Win the Game]

This is where I am with it. Despite all the tragedy and turmoil of last season, an interim coach had that team just a two-point conversion away from stunning Ohio State and being bowl eligible.

Yes, several important players from that team are gone. But some players with proven FBS track records were added via transfer. All-in-all, it seems like a wash in terms of talent level. So what's different this season? What made Josh Jackson, supposedly the most promising QB MD has had in over a decade, go from a very competent QB into someone who's had inexplicable turnovers and can't complete half his pass attempts?

The OLine has. Jackson has taken a beating just about every week.

[BSLMikeLowe]

The OLine has. Jackson has taken a beating just about every week.

 

The OL has been terrible, no argument there. But they haven't been all that great when it comes to pass protection for quite some time now. Just ask Kasim Hill.

 

I've seen enough WTFs from Jackson when he's actually had time to throw to think something else is wrong. Maybe MD hasn't been completely straightforward about his health? Otherwise, are we supposed to believe he's pulled a Rick Ankiel and forgotten how to throw a football?

[You Play to Win the Game]

The OL has been terrible, no argument there. But they haven't been all that great when it comes to pass protection for quite some time now. Just ask Kasim Hill.

I've seen enough WTFs from Jackson when he's actually had time to throw to think something else is wrong. Maybe MD hasn't been completely straightforward about his health? Otherwise, are we supposed to believe he's pulled a Rick Ankiel and forgotten how to throw a football?

I think he legitimately got rattled in game 2 or 3 and hasn't looked right. I feel bad for him. Has a lot of nice tools, but zero composure for a while now.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Right, no doubt there have been line issues... but there have numerous times where he's stood in the pocket clean and just can't connect. 

In '17 he threw for 3k yards, and 20 TDs completing 60% of his passes.  He's completed 49.4% this year.  

Definitely thought he would competent, and better than what we've seen for years. 
If you had just a mediocre passing game, coupled with the skill you have at RB... you'd have a play action game, and could sustain drives with some balance. 

So yeah, disappointed with Jackson's performance.  Certainly willing to acknowledge health, the O-line, and probably his coaching hasn't helped. 

[Pedro Cerrano]

This is always going to be the issue playing football in the big 10 east. Getting dominated in the trenches

[BSLChrisStoner]

This is always going to be the issue playing football in the big 10 east. Getting dominated in the trenches

Well to be fair, recruiting ranking wise last year the O-line was loaded. Just weren't developed properly enough. 

The D-Line this year had McLean leave, Fontaine moved to the O-Line, Breyon Gaddy moved to the O-Line, Cam Spence 'retire.'  
Each of those guys were highly regarded DTs... and MD got exactly zero production from them (defensively). 

Still don't love the coaching decision to move Fontaine and Gaddy, but at-least Fontaine got some time.

 

 

But yeah... until they address the lines, they can't compete. 

Definitely enough skill position talent on the roster, and the fact they can't be regular factors because the O-line isn't good enough sucks.   And the Dline was like paper mache this year.

[glenn__davis]

I really can't get over the people slamming Locks right now. The WHOLE reason he was brought in was because of his recruiting, which you aren't going to see results of until next season at the earliest. We are still in the fallout from the debacle period and when they didn't have a coach. The big recruits were already committed by the time Locks got the job. You gotta give him time to work and then you can judge how he's doing bringing in talent. ONCE he has the talent THEN you can judge him on how he coaches said talent.

 

People are like OMG, he's had a terrible season, lets fire him! He was always going to have a terrible season, he didn't have much of a team, and he's playing against some big teams.

 

It's like gutting the Orioles and then wanting to fire Elias after one season, cause he hasn't fixed everything somehow. Gotta give decisions like this a couple years, THEN you evaluate, THEN you make a decision.

 

I think those on the other side of the argument from you (myself included) would argue that the roster is better than you're giving it credit for.  There is a lot of evidence to support that, which I've included elsewhere on here.  This team shouldn't be looking like it doesn't belong on the field with a 4-6 Purdue team.  Even against the big boys of the B1G, we shouldn't look like an FCS team.

 

Lack of talent is one thing.  I'd have no problem if they were just getting manhandled physically, but to me that's only part of the problem.  How many times does the OL just totally blow an assignment and a guy comes free?  How many WRs are wide open against our defense with no one within 10 yards of them?  How many guys running open down the field does Josh Jackson miss?  All of that is on coaching.  This team, just from the eye test, looks as poorly prepared to play as any MD team I've seen.

 

And the recruiting that you mention above frankly has not been very good so far.  For a normal coach I'd say that some time to get settled is in order, but the whole point of Locksley was that he'd be able to hit the ground running with recruiting.  If he's not able to do that coming in from the start, how is it going to get better as the team continues to look this bad?

 

With that said, I do give him somewhat of a pass due to the inconsistent coaching these players have had over the past 2+ seasons.  It's been a whirlwind and a difficult situation for them I'm sure.  And I acknowledge that he's not going anywhere anytime soon and I'll continue to root for his success.  I just don't see how anyone can see anything positive with this program at the moment.  To lose is one thing, to look utterly incompetent while losing is another.

[JeremyStrain]

I think those on the other side of the argument from you (myself included) would argue that the roster is better than you're giving it credit for.  There is a lot of evidence to support that, which I've included elsewhere on here.  This team shouldn't be looking like it doesn't belong on the field with a 4-6 Purdue team.  Even against the big boys of the B1G, we shouldn't look like an FCS team.

 

Lack of talent is one thing.  I'd have no problem if they were just getting manhandled physically, but to me that's only part of the problem.  How many times does the OL just totally blow an assignment and a guy comes free?  How many WRs are wide open against our defense with no one within 10 yards of them?  How many guys running open down the field does Josh Jackson miss?  All of that is on coaching.  This team, just from the eye test, looks as poorly prepared to play as any MD team I've seen.

 

And the recruiting that you mention above frankly has not been very good so far.  For a normal coach I'd say that some time to get settled is in order, but the whole point of Locksley was that he'd be able to hit the ground running with recruiting.  If he's not able to do that coming in from the start, how is it going to get better as the team continues to look this bad?

 

With that said, I do give him somewhat of a pass due to the inconsistent coaching these players have had over the past 2+ seasons.  It's been a whirlwind and a difficult situation for them I'm sure.  And I acknowledge that he's not going anywhere anytime soon and I'll continue to root for his success.  I just don't see how anyone can see anything positive with this program at the moment.  To lose is one thing, to look utterly incompetent while losing is another.

 

I dunno, I think the examples you just made actually help my case more than yours. Those aren't coaching issues, those are individual performance issues. I don't think this roster is very good, a shiny rock here or there, but I think the lines especially are weak sauce, and much like we see with the Redskins, if your line sucks, so does the rest of the offense.

 

As far as the recruiting, that's the narrative people wanted to make because they want instant results, but even the people that were big supporters of his (I like the idea of him more than him personally, I'm just sick of seeing so much local talent go to these schools that guys like Lox and Franklin go to, seems like 1/4 of Alabama's roster was from here) have said that it's going to take time, that's how recruiting works. It's a little faster than MLB, but not by much. Recruiting is really done 2-3 years ahead, so we are still dealing with half of someone else's recruiting, the other half decommitted with all the drama and coaching changes. Then the replacements left are bottom of the barrel. So you can't really start judging him for another year or two there, and then is it fair to judge him solely based on freshmen? Cause that's all of his TRUE recruits that will be there.

 

People like to think OH new coach, everything is all better!!! But College sports are more like baseball with the minor leagues than the NFL. You don't just come plop your new scheme in and magically everyone is better. Most of those players were signed with a specific scheme in mind, and a good chunk of them won't be able to operate in the new one. It's why you see a lot of turnover on pro teams with new schemes too. Takes a while to be able to draft and sign enough players to make a difference. You have to have the patience to get through phasing out the old kids, and letting his recruiting take hold and come in. His first class of his own will probably be year after next. A lot of the better kids in next year's class were already committed when he got the job.

 

My niece plays soccer for Northern in Calvert County, where the most likely HS Player of the Year is from (49 goals this season, next closest was 24). You'd think she's going to a power soccer school right? She's going to Vanderbilt, because they signed her to a full ride her FRESHMAN year of HS. Locks was just able to start going after kids like that recruiting wise, so how long before you see this year's HS freshman class able and committing? Then you have to give them at least 2 years to have more than just one freshman class to judge him on right? It's like we know we can't judge Elias on what our system is right now in Baltimore. Most of it was inherited, and we won't know anything about this year's draft class for at least 2 years.

 

Total honesty, I don't think we are ever going to be better than mid-tier in the BIG10. Sure I hope I'm wrong, I know Chris and I have argued over this for years. But I think that they are ok with dominating so many other smaller sports, and punting football.

[BSLMikeLowe]

But I think that they are ok with dominating so many other smaller sports, and punting football.

 

That was Debbie Yow in a nutshell....take a lot of money and throw it at a lot of non-revenue sports, and collect her bonus checks when they won titles, versus throwing a lot of money at two revenue sports and try to win in a much more competitive landscape.

 

It's common knowledge in college athletics that the more money you invest in an athletic program, the better your odds of winning big. MD doesn't have the sort of alumni/booster base that are going to build up an enormous war chest for football. Kevin Plank and Barry Gossett can't compete with these other giant booster bases on their own. And while MD is reinvesting some of their new/future B1G money into the program, they are not going to make up the difference that way. Despite having committed nearly $200 million, their training and practice facilities will only have caught them up to the rest of the pack. And there is still a huge gap in the amount of money spent on recruiting between MD and the top football schools.

 

But back to the point, there is still no excuse for them to be this bad. They should not be getting pushed around by the likes of Temple and Purdue. Money is not the barrier to competing with those programs. Neither is the caliber of players MD is recruiting. The failure lies with what is happening after these players come into the program. And that lies in coaching. Locksley doesn't own all of that, obviously, in only his first season. But there sure aren't any tangible signs of improvement under his stewardship.

[JeremyStrain]

That was Debbie Yow in a nutshell....take a lot of money and throw it at a lot of non-revenue sports, and collect her bonus checks when they won titles, versus throwing a lot of money at two revenue sports and try to win in a much more competitive landscape.

 

It's common knowledge in college athletics that the more money you invest in an athletic program, the better your odds of winning big. MD doesn't have the sort of alumni/booster base that are going to build up an enormous war chest for football. Kevin Plank and Barry Gossett can't compete with these other giant booster bases on their own. And while MD is reinvesting some of their new/future B1G money into the program, they are not going to make up the difference that way. Despite having committed nearly $200 million, their training and practice facilities will only have caught them up to the rest of the pack. And there is still a huge gap in the amount of money spent on recruiting between MD and the top football schools.

 

But back to the point, there is still no excuse for them to be this bad. They should not be getting pushed around by the likes of Temple and Purdue. Money is not the barrier to competing with those programs. Neither is the caliber of players MD is recruiting. The failure lies with what is happening after these players come into the program. And that lies in coaching. Locksley doesn't own all of that, obviously, in only his first season. But there sure aren't any tangible signs of improvement under his stewardship.

 

No matter who is coaching, the coach can't make a QB stop sailing throws. Or make an OL not get beat like a 3 legged chair. Or make the defense tackle.

It's just an easy target to blame the coach when this many areas of a team are bad.

 

I don't understand why people think there was GOING to be improvement under a new coach. That's not how it works in college. Like I said in the last post, all of those players were chosen by a former regime, to fit their scheme. You can't expect those same players to get better when a new coach comes in with a scheme that doesn't fit what they were supposedly best suited to. You can hope some of them do, but in reality that's not really how it works, or a guy that runs the same type scheme Lox runs would have recruited and got these guys if they were better in the new scheme.

 

Everyone is playing out of their comfort zone, and it's going to be a train wreck.

 

But people need to pump the brakes on what they thought was going to happen with a coaching change. Hiring a new college coach, much like hiring a new scouting director in Baseball, should be a 5-6 year evaluation. You have to give them time to find pieces that fit their scheme, and secure them and get them playing. THEN you can judge on the scheme itself and if the coach is doing his best job. You can't complain because he inherited a whole system of shotgun spread offense players and they switch and run the power I.

 

Like you can't get mad if you have a roster full of 4-3 defensive scheme players, and then you switch to a 3-4. I mean common sense is going to say you are going to be short on beefy run stoppers on the line, and linebackers who can cover in the passing game. There's no free agency in college sports...well so to speak...they can't just go sign 5 impact players and become a fit for the new system. It's going to develop a couple players at a time each year.

[BSLMikeLowe]

No matter who is coaching, the coach can't make a QB stop sailing throws. Or make an OL not get beat like a 3 legged chair. Or make the defense tackle.

It's just an easy target to blame the coach when this many areas of a team are bad.

 

I don't understand why people think there was GOING to be improvement under a new coach. That's not how it works in college. Like I said in the last post, all of those players were chosen by a former regime, to fit their scheme. You can't expect those same players to get better when a new coach comes in with a scheme that doesn't fit what they were supposedly best suited to. You can hope some of them do, but in reality that's not really how it works, or a guy that runs the same type scheme Lox runs would have recruited and got these guys if they were better in the new scheme.

 

Everyone is playing out of their comfort zone, and it's going to be a train wreck.

 

But people need to pump the brakes on what they thought was going to happen with a coaching change. Hiring a new college coach, much like hiring a new scouting director in Baseball, should be a 5-6 year evaluation. You have to give them time to find pieces that fit their scheme, and secure them and get them playing. THEN you can judge on the scheme itself and if the coach is doing his best job. You can't complain because he inherited a whole system of shotgun spread offense players and they switch and run the power I.

 

Like you can't get mad if you have a roster full of 4-3 defensive scheme players, and then you switch to a 3-4. I mean common sense is going to say you are going to be short on beefy run stoppers on the line, and linebackers who can cover in the passing game. There's no free agency in college sports...well so to speak...they can't just go sign 5 impact players and become a fit for the new system. It's going to develop a couple players at a time each year.

 

I honestly did not expect improvement over last year's team. But I sure didn't expect such regression either. As for the bold part, I always believed good coaches adapt their scheme to the players they have, rather than trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

[JeremyStrain]

I honestly did not expect improvement over last year's team. But I sure didn't expect such regression either. As for the bold part, I always believed good coaches adapt their scheme to the players they have, rather than trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

 

Well you have to think Canada was there (who is a legit coaching prospect in his own right) and kept the scheme those guys were designed and picked for, so I would have expected worse this year taking those same guys and asking them to change and play differently.

 

There are multiple variables. Like this team was never going to compete with Ohio State, they just don't have the talent. Getting beat by Temple after a couple big non conference wins is like an annual thing now.

 

As to your point, it's solid, you would think that's what a coach should do, look out and go, hmmmm, I usually run this, but looking at this roster there's no way that's going to work. But in reality that rarely happens. It's usually this is my system and the best way to play so this is what we are going to do. There's a certain level of ego involved. I mean BB up in New England has had the same QB forever, but notice how the other parts are so interchangeable? I mean even the OLine is kind of a revolving door up there, although it's starting to get some holes.

 

I tried to find more details about his schemes. He's picked up parts from different places. A little bit of pro, a little bit of spread, a little bit of spread with a running game, a little bit of option. It works if you have parts for all that...which this team does and will not. A team like Alabama has all the best recruits and I'm sure they do. Lamont Jordan said he gets the credit for making him a star...which if I recall was more of a pro type offense with a north-south power running game...but that was a long time ago so don't quote me.

 

I think that he needs to pick what he wants to do as a scheme, recruit for it, and then hire an OC to work with the QB and passing game, while he works with the running game. That's just me though. Just seems like he's best suited for a ground and pound offense with a huge beefy OL, and a physical,  move the pile running back. Where we have smaller OL, and a great edge rushing scat back. I don't know that he has a clue what to do with a QB though, no matter who it is, so he should hire his staff to augment that.

[glenn__davis]

Jeremy, reading your post above one would get the impression that every coach that ever enters a new program would struggle immensely the first few seasons.  And yet we've seen many times where a new coaching staff comes in and is immediately successful, or at least more so than the previous regime.  We saw it not too long ago here with Friedgen.  I certainly didn't expect Locksley to come in and be a great coach, because his specialty is recruiting, not coaching.  But sheesh, I didn't expect them to be this bad either.  Again, losing is one thing, looking like you don't belong on the field is another.

 

Regarding recruiting, I agree with everything you say if this were a "typical" situation.  If this was a new coach that needed time to come in, establish connections, etc.  But that's exactly not the case with Locksley and was a big reason for his hire.  That he already has those connections, already knows those players, etc.  He was recruiting those some guys for Alabama this time last year.  DJ Durkin, having pretty much no ties to the area, managed to put together back-to-back Top 30 recruiting classes and 1 in the Top 20 in his short time here.  He also wasn't dealing with the fallout of the death of a player, so a point to Locksley there.

 

Ultimately I'm not all that concerned about that though - I just agree with MikeLowe, there's no way they should be THIS bad.  Just watch the games - the players (again, many of them highly ranked coming out of HS) have no clue what is going on.