goTULA.NEt

OUG wrote:

wave97 wrote:

RobertM320 wrote:Any word on Sean Wilson?

Sean Wilson playing injured. or withheld from playing will have an enormous negative effect on the entire defense. If I were laying money on this game without Sean Wilson. I'd take Army.

Even if Wilson isn't 100% Army is a lot more banged up than we are (missing left tackle, safety, etc), so I'm not sure why you'd do that.

wave97 wrote:

OUG wrote:

wave97 wrote:

RobertM320 wrote:Any word on Sean Wilson?

Sean Wilson playing injured. or withheld from playing will have an enormous negative effect on the entire defense. If I were laying money on this game without Sean Wilson. I'd take Army.

Even if Wilson isn't 100% Army is a lot more banged up than we are (missing left tackle, safety, etc), so I'm not sure why you'd do that.

It takes a lot less skill to be a left o-tackle in a man-to-man weight forward old school bone than it does to than it does to defend against it. The d-line has to deny access to LB's while stopping the dive and maintaining gap integrity in pursuit. That's a tall order in a world where this offense is deployed by four or five teams. Georgia Tech's o-line destroyed Tennesse's four & five-star d-line with this scheme. Army's o-line only has to sustain their blocks for a split second to be effective by getting low and often targeting vulnerable joints. A steady sound hand up front goes a long way in keeping this offense contained.

winwave wrote:

NOLABigSteve wrote:

sader24 wrote:The last thing you can call a person who still follows Tulane football is impatient. IMO our remaining fan base are too patient. We are far better coached than under CJ. There is no room for debate on that, however I can't be the only one worried about this offense. The Navy game was winnable and it wasn't won. I have no interest in moral victories at this point. It will be hard for me to see the light at the end of the tunnel if we can't knock off Army at home this week. It is a winnable game against a service academy at our home on campus stadium.

This. +100000

We all "want it now." Difference is some of you are willing to settle for moral victories, and spout the same rah rah cheer that comes with every coaching change. Jesus, every coach since our last winning coach 20 years ago in Bowden (and let's throw Teevens, Greg Davis, etc. before him in there) we've heard the same thing about building the foundation, doing things right, getting the right players in here, we're young, blah blah blah the list goes on. Some fans, actually the majority of fans, aren't buying into that bullsh*t anymore. Good coaches find ways to win. PERIOD. We are TULANE, we don't have the luxury or the time to roadmap the next 10 years. We missed that bus a LONG time ago. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen NOW.

Davis - Blah
Teevens - Blah
Scelfo - 1 bowl, Blah
Toledo - Used to coach at UCLA, let's see what he can do. Blah
CJ - Great recruiting, good with local talent, Saints connection. 1 bowl. Blah.

The same discussions we all are having about Fritz NOW were had about all of these coaches back THEN. And now all of a sudden because some of you HAVE A FEELING that Fritz will be different and successful that all the rest of us are crazy for thinking otherwise. Not a chance. The only thing different NOW vs. THEN is we are paying the head coach more, we have a new A.D., and we have an EMTPY, TINY on-campus stadium. But you know what, at the end of the day, Fritz hasn't show me sh*t, and until he does, I won't drink your kool-aid. It's up to him and you to prove us wrong. It's not the other way around, because we are where we are, and that's at the bottom of the freaking barrel.

To add to what Steve said we also had TB/RR come in and win in year 1 and go undefeated in year 2 b/c they came in and actually adjusted the scheme to the players they inherited. Most coaches just give lip service to adapting to the players they have. So that part of our history adds to the angst of the thought of having to wait 5 years for things to work.

OUG wrote:

wave97 wrote:

RobertM320 wrote:Any word on Sean Wilson?

Sean Wilson playing injured. or withheld from playing will have an enormous negative effect on the entire defense. If I were laying money on this game without Sean Wilson. I'd take Army.

Even if Wilson isn't 100% Army is a lot more banged up than we are (missing left tackle, safety, etc), so I'm not sure why you'd do that.

Profoundwizard wrote:

OUG wrote:

wave97 wrote:

RobertM320 wrote:Any word on Sean Wilson?

Sean Wilson playing injured. or withheld from playing will have an enormous negative effect on the entire defense. If I were laying money on this game without Sean Wilson. I'd take Army.

Even if Wilson isn't 100% Army is a lot more banged up than we are (missing left tackle, safety, etc), so I'm not sure why you'd do that.

wave97 isn't exactly known for his stellar predictions.

He predicted that Les Miles bringing in Ed Orgeron as the LSU D Line coach would bring them another national championship.

tpstulane wrote: Sorry to get off topic but Coach O is now 0-13 as a head coach in SEC road games. So he’d Owned his “O”

BC Wave wrote:

winwave wrote:

NOLABigSteve wrote:

sader24 wrote:The last thing you can call a person who still follows Tulane football is impatient. IMO our remaining fan base are too patient. We are far better coached than under CJ. There is no room for debate on that, however I can't be the only one worried about this offense. The Navy game was winnable and it wasn't won. I have no interest in moral victories at this point. It will be hard for me to see the light at the end of the tunnel if we can't knock off Army at home this week. It is a winnable game against a service academy at our home on campus stadium.

This. +100000

We all "want it now." Difference is some of you are willing to settle for moral victories, and spout the same rah rah cheer that comes with every coaching change. Jesus, every coach since our last winning coach 20 years ago in Bowden (and let's throw Teevens, Greg Davis, etc. before him in there) we've heard the same thing about building the foundation, doing things right, getting the right players in here, we're young, blah blah blah the list goes on. Some fans, actually the majority of fans, aren't buying into that bullsh*t anymore. Good coaches find ways to win. PERIOD. We are TULANE, we don't have the luxury or the time to roadmap the next 10 years. We missed that bus a LONG time ago. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen NOW.

Davis - Blah
Teevens - Blah
Scelfo - 1 bowl, Blah
Toledo - Used to coach at UCLA, let's see what he can do. Blah
CJ - Great recruiting, good with local talent, Saints connection. 1 bowl. Blah.

The same discussions we all are having about Fritz NOW were had about all of these coaches back THEN. And now all of a sudden because some of you HAVE A FEELING that Fritz will be different and successful that all the rest of us are crazy for thinking otherwise. Not a chance. The only thing different NOW vs. THEN is we are paying the head coach more, we have a new A.D., and we have an EMTPY, TINY on-campus stadium. But you know what, at the end of the day, Fritz hasn't show me sh*t, and until he does, I won't drink your kool-aid. It's up to him and you to prove us wrong. It's not the other way around, because we are where we are, and that's at the bottom of the freaking barrel.

To add to what Steve said we also had TB/RR come in and win in year 1 and go undefeated in year 2 b/c they came in and actually adjusted the scheme to the players they inherited. Most coaches just give lip service to adapting to the players they have. So that part of our history adds to the angst of the thought of having to wait 5 years for things to work.

Not that it proves anything, yet, but the major omission of the WF discussion is that, unlike his predecessors, he has won as head coach at every previous gig.

Again, nothing is proven but it should be noted.

DfromCT wrote:

tpstulane wrote: Sorry to get off topic but Coach O is now 0-13 as a head coach in SEC road games. So he’d Owned his “O”

Not to be too nit picky, Tim, but didn't Coach O coach the Tiggers last November? I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Tiggers beat Arkansas and Texas A&M on the road that month.

BC Wave wrote:Not that it proves anything, yet, but the major omission of the WF discussion is that, unlike his predecessors, he has won as head coach at every previous gig.

Again, nothing is proven but it should be noted.

tpstulane wrote:

DfromCT wrote:

tpstulane wrote: Sorry to get off topic but Coach O is now 0-13 as a head coach in SEC road games. So he’d Owned his “O”

Not to be too nit picky, Tim, but didn't Coach O coach the Tiggers last November? I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Tiggers beat Arkansas and Texas A&M on the road that month.

Yes but not as official head coach. He got hired after the season.

DfromCT wrote:

tpstulane wrote:

DfromCT wrote:

tpstulane wrote: Sorry to get off topic but Coach O is now 0-13 as a head coach in SEC road games. So he’d Owned his “O”

Not to be too nit picky, Tim, but didn't Coach O coach the Tiggers last November? I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Tiggers beat Arkansas and Texas A&M on the road that month.

Yes but not as official head coach. He got hired after the season.

But those games, along with the ones he had as interim HC at USC, go on his (all-time) record as a Head Coach.

.... Ed Orgeron has never won an SEC road game, and his previous tenure at Ole Miss ended with a 3-21 SEC record, the worst in conference history.

UptWave91 wrote:https://twitter.com/GreenWaveFB/status/ ... 2076825600

UptWave91 wrote:https://twitter.com/GreenWaveFB/status/ ... 2076825600

tpstulane wrote: https://www.andthevalleyshook.com/2017/ ... ed-orgeron

.... Ed Orgeron has never won an SEC road game, and his previous tenure at Ole Miss ended with a 3-21 SEC record, the worst in conference history.

That’s why I posted. That article just came out today.

NOLABigSteve wrote:

BC Wave wrote:Not that it proves anything, yet, but the major omission of the WF discussion is that, unlike his predecessors, he has won as head coach at every previous gig.

Again, nothing is proven but it should be noted.

You are absolutely correct. This is exactly why I thought we would have at least seen a few more wins over the last 15 games, an adaptation by WF to better utilize the current players, and all of this thrown in with improved special teams.

2 coaches, each coaching the same group of players, has so far equaled similar results. Can't argue with that.

Ruski wrote:

NOLABigSteve wrote:

BC Wave wrote:Not that it proves anything, yet, but the major omission of the WF discussion is that, unlike his predecessors, he has won as head coach at every previous gig.

Again, nothing is proven but it should be noted.

You are absolutely correct. This is exactly why I thought we would have at least seen a few more wins over the last 15 games, an adaptation by WF to better utilize the current players, and all of this thrown in with improved special teams.

2 coaches, each coaching the same group of players, has so far equaled similar results. Can't argue with that.

It feels a bit different but I think you're right about the similar results. I don't have the time now but I'd love to see the break down of our points scored vs. allowed in 4th quarters. Also how many leads we've lost in the late 3rd/4th quarter. Really seems like Fritz can't finish games at all.

DfromCT wrote:To "not be able to finish" you need to have a lead late in the game. Other than SMU last year, what games did we lead late that we lost the lead? Sorry but games like Wake Forest last year, or Navy this year are NOT games that we couldn't finish. Those are games we had a CHANCE to win, but couldn't come from behind late. Two different categories.

RobertM320 wrote:

DfromCT wrote:To "not be able to finish" you need to have a lead late in the game. Other than SMU last year, what games did we lead late that we lost the lead? Sorry but games like Wake Forest last year, or Navy this year are NOT games that we couldn't finish. Those are games we had a CHANCE to win, but couldn't come from behind late. Two different categories.

Navy last year.

DfromCT wrote:

RobertM320 wrote:

DfromCT wrote:To "not be able to finish" you need to have a lead late in the game. Other than SMU last year, what games did we lead late that we lost the lead? Sorry but games like Wake Forest last year, or Navy this year are NOT games that we couldn't finish. Those are games we had a CHANCE to win, but couldn't come from behind late. Two different categories.

Navy last year.

Ok, fair enough. So twice in Coach Fritz's 15 games here we've lost a lead late. The Navy game we were winning 14-13 at the end of the 3rd quarter and most of the fourth. If that means we can't close games, I guess I'm wrong. But I think our problem is more one of not having the depth to compete as strongly in the second half as we can in the first half. And I see this staff constantly working to change that. Notice how many underclassmen get into the games? A whole lot of true Freshman are playing this year, and contributing, despite the "experts" giving the recruiting class poor grades.

To answer Ruski's question above about how many games we've lost a lead late in the fourth quarter, I believe the answer is twice. You can even add U-La-La last year to that category, as we were up by a TD with 6 minutes left and won in OT. So if you count the U-La-La game, it's three times in 15 games. On the flip side, we would have lost the game at UMass if CJ or CBT were coaching, having spotted them 14 in the first 4 minutes of the game.