91 replies to this topic

[Mackus]

The biggest argument I’ve seen for keeping Locksley is that, if you fire him, you almost certainly lose both the players on this roster (like Washington, Mathis, Stewart, etc.) and the ones in the 2026 recruiting class like Zion Elee.

We’ve heard that argument before back in 2015 when firing Edsall and not hiring Locksley led to the loss of Dwayne Haskins and others (including Chase Young). I’ve never understood that though, because it’s become pretty clear over the last 7 years that talent isn’t the issue. Go get a coach who can do more with less, not the other way around.

Maybe there is a come-to-Jesus type compromise where Locksley has to hire an OC and hand over control of the offense. Defense seems fine this year. Locksley is a good recruiter.

I doubt he'd go for that since he has all the cards regarding a buyout, but might be progress without losing the recruiting he provides.

[BSLZackKiesel]

Maybe there is a come-to-Jesus type compromise where Locksley has to hire an OC and hand over control of the offense. Defense seems fine this year. Locksley is a good recruiter.

I doubt he'd go for that since he has all the cards regarding a buyout, but might be progress without losing the recruiting he provides.

The thing is, Pep Hamilton has had more influence over this offense than any offensive coordinator I’ve ever seen under Locksley. He’s calling all the plays, and schematically they look very different than anything they’ve run since 2019. So I’m not sure that fixes anything.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I don't think Turgeon, Willard, or Buzz qualify as poor to mid coaches.

At least not in the same category as Locksley in football. I don't think Locksley could get another job as a power conference head coach.

I was referring to both sports together. Turgeon and Willard were mid. Williams’s track record is a little better than theirs, though obviously not elite. Their poor decisions are pretty much exclusive to football. Edsall was bad, and Durkin was awful. Locksley gets a little bit of a pass because of the circumstances surrounding the program when he was hired, but he didn’t really earn the extension(s) he got and MD needed to cut bait after going 4-8 last year.

[BSLMikeLowe]

The biggest argument I’ve seen for keeping Locksley is that, if you fire him, you almost certainly lose both the players on this roster (like Washington, Mathis, Stewart, etc.) and the ones in the 2026 recruiting class like Zion Elee.

We’ve heard that argument before back in 2015 when firing Edsall and not hiring Locksley led to the loss of Dwayne Haskins and others (including Chase Young). I’ve never understood that though, because it’s become pretty clear over the last 7 years that talent isn’t the issue. Go get a coach who can do more with less, not the other way around.

Be curious to know how many players and commits bolted Indiana when they switched two years ago. Cignetti brought in a bunch of JMU guys and got to the CFP, and a year later he has the #2 ranked team in the country.

 

Fear of failure is no excuse.

[BaltBird 24]

I was referring to both sports together. Turgeon and Willard were mid. Williams’s track record is a little better than theirs, though obviously not elite. Their poor decisions are pretty much exclusive to football. Edsall was bad, and Durkin was awful. Locksley gets a little bit of a pass because of the circumstances surrounding the program when he was hired, but he didn’t really earn the extension(s) he got and MD needed to cut bait after going 4-8 last year.

Willard was pretty mid, I can agree there. He didn't do anything special at Seton Hall. One tournament win, sub .500 conference record.

Turgeon did pretty well at Wichita State and Texas A&M. I'd say he was better than mid, but obviously not an elite guy.

[glenn__davis]

The biggest argument I’ve seen for keeping Locksley is that, if you fire him, you almost certainly lose both the players on this roster (like Washington, Mathis, Stewart, etc.) and the ones in the 2026 recruiting class like Zion Elee.

We’ve heard that argument before back in 2015 when firing Edsall and not hiring Locksley led to the loss of Dwayne Haskins and others (including Chase Young). I’ve never understood that though, because it’s become pretty clear over the last 7 years that talent isn’t the issue. Go get a coach who can do more with less, not the other way around.

 

Yeah I think that argument would hold more water pre-portal era.  As BaltBird pointed out, there's a chance some/most of those guys leave anyway.

 

I think Locksley has done what he was hired to do.  He stabilized the program and frankly did better than I expected.  But seems pretty clear there's a ceiling under him that won't be crossed.  If the admin is satisfied with running a program that isn't relevant but also won't make any waves, either positive or negative, then he probably sticks around for a while.

[BaltBird 24]

Best case scenario is Locksley strikes gold like he did with Taulia, is able to surround him with very good skill players, faces somewhat weak B10 competition (like this year) and eeks out 7-8 wins.

If Washington sticks around, maybe he can have some Taulia type seasons. The skill talent around Washington this year seems to be lacking, however.

[Mike B]

I'm not convinced we won't lost most of those guys even if Locksley stays.

Agreed.  I would bet that the vultures are circling the programs best players starting with Washington.

[BaltBird 24]

Agreed. I would bet that the vultures are circling the programs best players starting with Washington.

Stewart and Mathis might have more value than Washington, but yeah those 3 are definitely getting poached. I'll be shocked if any of them finish their college careers at Maryland.

[glenn__davis]

Mathis and Washington have both been pretty pro-MD for some time.  Doesn't mean they'll stay obviously but I think they're both pretty solid Locks-guys.

 

Stewart was a bit overlooked and under-recruited due to injury.  Of the 3 he seems to me to be the most likely to look for greener pastures but that's purely speculation on my part.

[Mike B]

Mathis and Washington have both been pretty pro-MD for some time.  Doesn't mean they'll stay obviously but I think they're both pretty solid Locks-guys.

 

Stewart was a bit overlooked and under-recruited due to injury.  Of the 3 he seems to me to be the most likely to look for greener pastures but that's purely speculation on my part.

I am sure they are Locks guys, but I am also sure they have their own personal goals as well as team goals.  At some point they will realize that the latter may be unattainable at Maryland.

[BSLRoseKatz]

I am sure they are Locks guys, but I am also sure they have their own personal goals as well as team goals.  At some point they will realize that the latter may be unattainable at Maryland.

 

Sure but also some guys probably see going 9-3 at Maryland as a more meaningful accomplishment than making the playoff at Ohio State or whatever. It's pointless speculation to guess which players feel that way but "you can be responsible for Maryland's best season in 20 years" is still going to be a compelling pitch to some kids.