|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 5, 2009 23:15:10 GMT -8
Ouch!
What an awful way to start the tenure of Brady Hoke and his new staff. Yes, the Aztecs started fast. But then the wheels came off and the roof fell in. Mistake after mistake. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity. Honestly, I doubt a Tom Craft or Chuck Long coached team would have done much worse.
I surely hope that UCLA ends up in the Top-25. Anything less than a stellar season by the Bruins will make us look absolutely pathetic by comparison. We are to UCLA as Southern Utah is to us.
I understand that the rebuilding will take time. I understand that UCLA has more talent. I get all that. But for a team to get worse, much worse, as the game wears on is very, very disappointing.
The real problem is that we have so little time to turn this Aztec football program around. If there is not a spark of hope shown soon, voices in positions of power are going to begin talking seriously about dropping the sport at SDSU.
As I said. . . what a terrible way to start a new season and a new coach's tenure.
AzWm
PS: I seriously doubt that I will ever make the trip to the Rose Bowl again. Too much pain, too much inconvenience (have you seen the parking situation there?!), too much losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 6, 2009 6:31:15 GMT -8
Ouch! What an awful way to start the tenure of Brady Hoke and his new staff. Yes, the Aztecs started fast. But then the wheels came off and the roof fell in. Mistake after mistake. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity. Honestly, I doubt a Tom Craft or Chuck Long coached team would have done much worse. I surely hope that UCLA ends up in the Top-25. Anything less than a stellar season by the Bruins will make us look absolutely pathetic by comparison. We are to UCLA as Southern Utah is to us. I understand that the rebuilding will take time. I understand that UCLA has more talent. I get all that. But for a team to get worse, much worse, as the game wears on is very, very disappointing. The real problem is that we have so little time to turn this Aztec football program around. If there is not a spark of hope shown soon, voices in positions of power are going to begin talking seriously about dropping the sport at SDSU. As I said. . . what a terrible way to start a new season and a new coach's tenure. AzWm PS: I seriously doubt that I will ever make the trip to the Rose Bowl again. Too much pain, too much inconvenience (have you seen the parking situation there?!), too much losing. I did not like the score or the breakdowns in special teams. We got beat where we expected to et beat on the lines on both sides of the ball. I liked what I saw of Kazee. I was really bummed that we had no chance to throw because our O Line was manhandled. Defense overall played pretty darn well most of the second half. (No Craft remarks please) I kind of like the parking and the way they gave use adequate space to tailgate. The idea that there were few if any "porta potties" was a little tough if you were processing adult beverages. (Bruin Fans were just opening car doors and doing their business right there. We toughed it out and made one long trip suffice. The seating itself inside has not changed. All in all, the "Q" is a better place all things considered. We chose not to attend the tail gate this year and are thinking next time to either take the AAF bus and go to that tail gate or not go at all. Getting out was not all that hard but having to have a designated driver sort of blows for that guy. I think that this was my fourth trip up there and they all end up with a disappointment, but still I see progress. We were competing as best we could till the end. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 7, 2009 7:48:53 GMT -8
Ouch! What an awful way to start the tenure of Brady Hoke and his new staff. Yes, the Aztecs started fast. But then the wheels came off and the roof fell in. Mistake after mistake. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity. Honestly, I doubt a Tom Craft or Chuck Long coached team would have done much worse. I surely hope that UCLA ends up in the Top-25. Anything less than a stellar season by the Bruins will make us look absolutely pathetic by comparison. We are to UCLA as Southern Utah is to us. I understand that the rebuilding will take time. I understand that UCLA has more talent. I get all that. But for a team to get worse, much worse, as the game wears on is very, very disappointing. The real problem is that we have so little time to turn this Aztec football program around. If there is not a spark of hope shown soon, voices in positions of power are going to begin talking seriously about dropping the sport at SDSU. As I said. . . what a terrible way to start a new season and a new coach's tenure. AzWm PS: I seriously doubt that I will ever make the trip to the Rose Bowl again. Too much pain, too much inconvenience (have you seen the parking situation there?!), too much losing. Shhhh, don't say that about Chuck Long and compare him to Brady Hoke.....The MOD might move your post somewhere else. Remember, it is a "Sin" to talk about Chuck Long. (Unless you bash him of course, then it is ok) ***Funny, I lurk on Aztecalk and Chuck Longs name comes up all the time and I haven't seen any of their posts moved because of it. You know why? Because they all bash Long. It is ok to bash, but not speak what is on your mind. At least if your opinion differs from the MOD. |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 7, 2009 13:04:28 GMT -8
Ouch! What an awful way to start the tenure of Brady Hoke and his new staff. Yes, the Aztecs started fast. But then the wheels came off and the roof fell in. Mistake after mistake. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity. Honestly, I doubt a Tom Craft or Chuck Long coached team would have done much worse. I surely hope that UCLA ends up in the Top-25. Anything less than a stellar season by the Bruins will make us look absolutely pathetic by comparison. We are to UCLA as Southern Utah is to us. I understand that the rebuilding will take time. I understand that UCLA has more talent. I get all that. But for a team to get worse, much worse, as the game wears on is very, very disappointing. The real problem is that we have so little time to turn this Aztec football program around. If there is not a spark of hope shown soon, voices in positions of power are going to begin talking seriously about dropping the sport at SDSU. As I said. . . what a terrible way to start a new season and a new coach's tenure. AzWm PS: I seriously doubt that I will ever make the trip to the Rose Bowl again. Too much pain, too much inconvenience (have you seen the parking situation there?!), too much losing. In your comment AW on no time to turn around the program.....This is exactly why I condemned the last 3 hires AND called Hoke a "lateral" move. We needed to hire a coach when Craft was let go, and Long was let go, that could turn the program around in one year and put 35,000 in the seats. Only a few could do that and we passed on all them... -Dennis Erickson, who is at ASU. -Rick N., who is at UCLA. -Terry Bowden, who is at some D1AA school. Hoke (who I like a lot) is no more than ANOTHER "lateral" move by this Athletic Dept. It is going to take him 3-5 years to turn this around, because we are starting all over again. AND an early prediction. I don't Brady Hoke is going to be here more than 3 years, so we will be starting all over again after his 3rd year. If he fails terribly in his first two years, people will be ready to fire him after year 3......If he wins 6 or 7 in his third year, he will be hired away by a B (S) C school. If he wins 9-10 (and I hope he does) in his 2nd-3rd year, he will be gone to a B (S) C school. Hopefully we don't go back to a JC coach after Hoke and are willing to step up and get the guy who will put us in the Top 15-20. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 7, 2009 13:57:43 GMT -8
Ouch! What an awful way to start the tenure of Brady Hoke and his new staff. Yes, the Aztecs started fast. But then the wheels came off and the roof fell in. Mistake after mistake. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity. Honestly, I doubt a Tom Craft or Chuck Long coached team would have done much worse. I surely hope that UCLA ends up in the Top-25. Anything less than a stellar season by the Bruins will make us look absolutely pathetic by comparison. We are to UCLA as Southern Utah is to us. I understand that the rebuilding will take time. I understand that UCLA has more talent. I get all that. But for a team to get worse, much worse, as the game wears on is very, very disappointing. The real problem is that we have so little time to turn this Aztec football program around. If there is not a spark of hope shown soon, voices in positions of power are going to begin talking seriously about dropping the sport at SDSU. As I said. . . what a terrible way to start a new season and a new coach's tenure. AzWm PS: I seriously doubt that I will ever make the trip to the Rose Bowl again. Too much pain, too much inconvenience (have you seen the parking situation there?!), too much losing. In your comment AW on no time to turn around the program.....This is exactly why I condemned the last 3 hires AND called Hoke a "lateral" move. We needed to hire a coach when Craft was let go, and Long was let go, that could turn the program around in one year and put 35,000 in the seats. Only a few could do that and we passed on all them... -Dennis Erickson, who is at ASU. -Rick N., who is at UCLA. -Terry Bowden, who is at some D1AA school. Hoke (who I like a lot) is no more than ANOTHER "lateral" move by this Athletic Dept. It is going to take him 3-5 years to turn this around, because we are starting all over again. AND an early prediction. I don't Brady Hoke is going to be here more than 3 years, so we will be starting all over again after his 3rd year. If he fails terribly in his first two years, people will be ready to fire him after year 3......If he wins 6 or 7 in his third year, he will be hired away by a B (S) C school. If he wins 9-10 (and I hope he does) in his 2nd-3rd year, he will be gone to a B (S) C school. Hopefully we don't go back to a JC coach after Hoke and are willing to step up and get the guy who will put us in the Top 15-20. There is no doubt that the previous two coaching hires were mistakes. Rich Brooks and Dick Tomey were both a lot younger than they are now and were unemployed in 2001. Craft was a mistake. As for 2005, you have mentioned a couple of good choices who were overlooked. There were others. Personally, I would have been happy to see Terry Bowden get the call this time, but you and I both know the foggy thinking that passes for leadership on the Mesa. Hoke was a good choice, I think, but whether he can get the Aztecs to the 7 or 8 win level in a year or two is an open question. I think the current staff is a very good one. The problem is that we have let the program deteriorate so badly for a decade that no quick fix is likely. What we desperately need is a big-time upset over a name program. The UCLA game was such an opportunity, and that didn't turn out so well. I would be happy to see a win over AFA or CSU. Such a win is probably about the most impressive we can hope for this year. If the best we can do is beat So. Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and New Mexico, outstanding recruits are going to shrug and keep looking for scholarships from BCS schools, or from Utah, Boise State, BYU, TCU, and a few others. Hoke will get good players, but not enough of them and not the truckloads of 3, 4, and 5 star athletes that the Top-25 schools regularly attract. In other words, mediocrity. Well, I admit that mediocrity would be an improvement over what we have been suffering through for so long. Enough improvement, in other words, to attract crowds of 20,000 to 25,000 instead of the 12,000 to 15,000 that now show up at the Q. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 7, 2009 16:09:42 GMT -8
In your comment AW on no time to turn around the program.....This is exactly why I condemned the last 3 hires AND called Hoke a "lateral" move. We needed to hire a coach when Craft was let go, and Long was let go, that could turn the program around in one year and put 35,000 in the seats. Only a few could do that and we passed on all them... -Dennis Erickson, who is at ASU. -Rick N., who is at UCLA. -Terry Bowden, who is at some D1AA school. Hoke (who I like a lot) is no more than ANOTHER "lateral" move by this Athletic Dept. It is going to take him 3-5 years to turn this around, because we are starting all over again. AND an early prediction. I don't Brady Hoke is going to be here more than 3 years, so we will be starting all over again after his 3rd year. If he fails terribly in his first two years, people will be ready to fire him after year 3......If he wins 6 or 7 in his third year, he will be hired away by a B (S) C school. If he wins 9-10 (and I hope he does) in his 2nd-3rd year, he will be gone to a B (S) C school. Hopefully we don't go back to a JC coach after Hoke and are willing to step up and get the guy who will put us in the Top 15-20. There is no doubt that the previous two coaching hires were mistakes. Rich Brooks and Dick Tomey were both a lot younger than they are now and were unemployed in 2001. Craft was a mistake. As for 2005, you have mentioned a couple of good choices who were overlooked. There were others. Personally, I would have been happy to see Terry Bowden get the call this time, but you and I both know the foggy thinking that passes for leadership on the Mesa. Hoke was a good choice, I think, but whether he can get the Aztecs to the 7 or 8 win level in a year or two is an open question. I think the current staff is a very good one. The problem is that we have let the program deteriorate so badly for a decade that no quick fix is likely. What we desperately need is a big-time upset over a name program. The UCLA game was such an opportunity, and that didn't turn out so well. I would be happy to see a win over AFA or CSU. Such a win is probably about the most impressive we can hope for this year. If the best we can do is beat So. Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and New Mexico, outstanding recruits are going to shrug and keep looking for scholarships from BCS schools, or from Utah, Boise State, BYU, TCU, and a few others. Hoke will get good players, but not enough of them and not the truckloads of 3, 4, and 5 star athletes that the Top-25 schools regularly attract. In other words, mediocrity. Well, I admit that mediocrity would be an improvement over what we have been suffering through for so long. Enough improvement, in other words, to attract crowds of 20,000 to 25,000 instead of the 12,000 to 15,000 that now show up at the Q. AzWm And yes, there is no doubt that this current staff is an upgrade over the previous two. It scares me that we made a change (again), didn't go for the big name AND that even with the change at head coach, season ticket sales are down from last year. We need to blow out Southern Utah, beat Idaho on the road, and then somehow beat Air Force the road. Then and only then will attendance start to show some improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 7, 2009 18:27:13 GMT -8
We may not beat AFA, but beating the three remaining non-conference opponents would make us 3-2 going into the remainder of the MWC season. Wyoming and New Mexico seem quite beatable (though with the current Aztecs, we should take nothing for granted). Add those two and we reach 5 wins. That would be a decent improvement over 2008. Should we beat CSU (no easy thing on the road) we would be bowl eligible for the first time in 11 years! THAT would make people take notice.
Even if we did not get a bowl invitation, 6-6 would surely convince many skeptics that the Aztecs were finally headed in the right direction. But what happens next year? What are our chances of winning 7 in 2010(which would be unmistakable evidence that the arrow is pointed up and now down)? Frankly, I think getting to 7 wins in '10 is not going to be easy, no matter how effective Hoke and staff prove to be. The key will still be recruiting, and I'm not sure we can upgrade the program in that area without pulling a genuine upset here or there. Only such a stunner will cause quality recruits to turn away from the Pac-10 or Big-12 and give us a serious look.
Somewhere along the line we need to beat one of the MWC's top 3 schools. A tall order, but that has to be our goal if we want to reach 8 or more wins and a Top-25 ranking. Do that and the sun will finally shine on the Mesa.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 7, 2009 20:03:28 GMT -8
The defense, in general, should be competitive in the MWC but the D-Line is a multi-year project and if Hoke can't do it, then who?
The offense needs a running game and it is just as much a function of the line as it is the backs. We either need to mature some of our young runners and give them more snaps or we need to recruit some impact backs. A multi-year project also.
Specials teams should get better as the coaching staff is sure to make that a priority now and the 17 point swing brought about by the kicking game in the UCLA game should be a one time event.
Ryan will get some coaching and should settle down with some easier games in the next two weeks. I don't think there is a better QB on the roster so I wouldn't panic about his blunders at UCLA.
What I saw Saturday did nothing to change my estimate of a 6-6 season likely with a 5-7 year at a minimum which by all accounts will be an improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 7, 2009 22:09:12 GMT -8
The defense, in general, should be competitive in the MWC but the D-Line is a multi-year project and if Hoke can't do it, then who? The offense needs a running game and it is just as much a function of the line as it is the backs. We either need to mature some of our young runners and give them more snaps or we need to recruit some impact backs. A multi-year project also. Specials teams should get better as the coaching staff is sure to make that a priority now and the 17 point swing brought about by the kicking game in the UCLA game should be a one time event. Ryan will get some coaching and should settle down with some easier games in the next two weeks. I don't think there is a better QB on the roster so I wouldn't panic about his blunders at UCLA. What I saw Saturday did nothing to change my estimate of a 6-6 season likely with a 5-7 year at a minimum which by all accounts will be an improvement. I also think we will still win at least 5 games this season. Of course we have 3 gimmies coming up. We should be able to get at least 2 in conf. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 8, 2009 14:59:06 GMT -8
PS: I seriously doubt that I will ever make the trip to the Rose Bowl again. Too much pain, too much inconvenience (have you seen the parking situation there?!), too much losing. In your comment AW on no time to turn around the program.....This is exactly why I condemned the last 3 hires AND called Hoke a "lateral" move. We needed to hire a coach when Craft was let go, and Long was let go, that could turn the program around in one year and put 35,000 in the seats. Only a few could do that and we passed on all them... -Dennis Erickson, who is at ASU. -Rick N., who is at UCLA. -Terry Bowden, who is at some D1AA school. Hoke (who I like a lot) is no more than ANOTHER "lateral" move by this Athletic Dept. It is going to take him 3-5 years to turn this around, because we are starting all over again. AND an early prediction. I don't Brady Hoke is going to be here more than 3 years, so we will be starting all over again after his 3rd year. If he fails terribly in his first two years, people will be ready to fire him after year 3......If he wins 6 or 7 in his third year, he will be hired away by a B (S) C school. If he wins 9-10 (and I hope he does) in his 2nd-3rd year, he will be gone to a B (S) C school. Hopefully we don't go back to a JC coach after Hoke and are willing to step up and get the guy who will put us in the Top 15-20.[/quote] Steve, everything above is nonsense. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 8, 2009 15:42:02 GMT -8
Hoke is a better hire than were Craft and Long. But the "buzz" that his hire created was nothing compared with the excitement that would have accompanied the hiring of an Erickson, Neuheisel, or Bowden.
But Hoke was another "safe" choice. My opinion my be incorrect, but it seems to me that we have entered the "hail Mary" phase of Aztec football. Things have gotten so bad, Aztec football has become such a joke, that we needed a really huge electric shock. In Hoke, we have a solid coach but not a lot of electricity.
My hope is that the Aztecs will overachieve this year, meaning 6 wins, and reach a bowl next year with 7. However, there may simply be too little talent, especially D and O lines, on this roster to achieve either of those two goals. And what chance is there that one more Hoke recruiting class will lift the quality of the lines to where our conference opponents are now?
I do fear that it will take Hoke until his third year to build the team to where it needs to be to contend in the MWC. And that assumes either some very huge recruiting coups or else exceptional coaching work to improve the skills of the players we now have and will recruit next February.
It won't be easy. The challenge facing Hoke would not have been so worrisome had he (or someone with similar skills) been taking over after the 2001 season. The subsequent 7 years have sunk Aztec football so much lower that bringing it up to a decent level with respect to the MWC is ever so much harder.
And don't forget, there are at least 6 other programs in this conference that are ahead, in some cases WAY ahead of where we are now. Those schools are not just going to shift into idle while be try to re-build. Barring administrative decisions on their part as poor as we have experienced, our fellow MWC members are going to try to stay two steps ahead of us in the recruiting wars.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 8, 2009 17:02:09 GMT -8
PS: I seriously doubt that I will ever make the trip to the Rose Bowl again. Too much pain, too much inconvenience (have you seen the parking situation there?!), too much losing. In your comment AW on no time to turn around the program.....This is exactly why I condemned the last 3 hires AND called Hoke a "lateral" move. We needed to hire a coach when Craft was let go, and Long was let go, that could turn the program around in one year and put 35,000 in the seats. Only a few could do that and we passed on all them... -Dennis Erickson, who is at ASU. -Rick N., who is at UCLA. -Terry Bowden, who is at some D1AA school. Hoke (who I like a lot) is no more than ANOTHER "lateral" move by this Athletic Dept. It is going to take him 3-5 years to turn this around, because we are starting all over again. AND an early prediction. I don't Brady Hoke is going to be here more than 3 years, so we will be starting all over again after his 3rd year. If he fails terribly in his first two years, people will be ready to fire him after year 3......If he wins 6 or 7 in his third year, he will be hired away by a B (S) C school. If he wins 9-10 (and I hope he does) in his 2nd-3rd year, he will be gone to a B (S) C school. Hopefully we don't go back to a JC coach after Hoke and are willing to step up and get the guy who will put us in the Top 15-20. Steve, everything above is nonsense. =Bob[/quote] What is nonsense =Bob? Hoke is gone after 3 years. He is either hired away by another school or is fired by us. If he wins 7, he is gone. If he wins 4-5 for 3 years, we screwed the pooch on the hiring of Hoke. I think Hoke will win that 7 in 2 years. I think he is a very good coach. But if he does, he is gone and guess what.... We will be moving into "Biggest Hire Ever At San Diego State....Part 4". |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Sept 8, 2009 18:44:15 GMT -8
I think Schemmel's strategy is for Hoke to win quickly and be bought out and I don't have a problem with that. If our program gets some toughness, discipline and a winning reputation, that legacy could last for years for some subsequent coach(es). I recall when another former MAC Coach that came to the MWC and was hired away by a BCS school in two years after winning right away....and look at that program today.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Sept 8, 2009 20:19:34 GMT -8
I think Schemmel's strategy is for Hoke to win quickly and be bought out and I don't have a problem with that. If our program gets some toughness, discipline and a winning reputation, that legacy could last for years for some subsequent coach(es). I recall when another former MAC Coach that came to the MWC and was hired away by a BCS school in two years after winning right away....and look at that program today. I have no problem with Hoke leaving after 3 years to a B (S) C program, if he has us on the winning track. That again puts it into the hands of our Athletic Dept. to hire someone as good or better than Hoke to continue the upward trend. I have a big problem with the Aztecs firing Hoke in 3 or 4 years if he isn't at .500 or winning 7 games. We HAVE to maintain some stability in the football program. You can't do that firing coaches every 3-4 years. |
|
