Taggert has 1 more year

[slick1ru2]

The issue we've seen with all 3 USF head coaches, they didn't have the connections and/or clout to bring in key staff to get the Bulls over the hump. There are large areas put in the hands of the coordinators. So let's hope the next one does. Or if he doesn't can pick up where the coaching is lacking.

[USFbulls24]

 

 

 

A .500 season after 4 years of 11+ wins, 3 division titles, 2 conference titles, a rose bowl win and an orange bowl win is proof that the offense can't work at Stanford?

Offense has declined significantly since Harbaugh left and that is undeniable. In the past 3 seasons they ranked 70th, 48th, and 95th. They have ranked in the top 11 in defense each of the last 3 years. So yes you can get by with an ineffective offense if your defense is lights out. Stanford's is. Ours isn't.

 

 

Offensive rankings are can be deceptive. Stanford doesnt run an Air Raid or Spread offense. They will never light up the board. Their offense isnt meant to climb the ladder. Neither is ours. That is ok. I dont care about being at the top of the rankings, just win the games. If that means we rank int he triple digits, so be it. Just get to double digits in the category that matters, Ws. Stanford has been getting Ws. We have not. 

 

From 2009-2011 when they were title contenders they ranked 11th, 9th, and 7th in scoring offense. In essense "lighting up the board". In 2011 they scored 30+ in 12 games and had games of 65, 57, 56, 48, 45, and 44 twice. They implemented the NASCAR hurry up offense. Teams under Taggart have never ranked higher than 77th in offense in 5 seasons. After 2011 Stanford hasn't rated higher than 71st. Shafer at Syracuse in 2 seasons their best year offensively was 87th. Could it be that it wasn't the offensive scheme that Harbaugh was running as much as a great team he recruited from 2009-2011? Prior to 2009 his best offense was rated 67th. What year's did Andrew Luck play there again?

 

 

Offensive rankings can be deceptive**** There is nothing deceptive about an offensive ranking our team sits on, as well as any of the other offenses ranked in the triple digits.

 

Can you show me a team with an offense that was ranked in the triple digits that ever had double digit wins?? Probably not. If you want to have success at any level (P5, FCS, the tragedy that is the AAC) in the win column you have to have an offense ranked better than 100. I don't think anyone is calling for our offense to be scoring 50 points a game or be ranked even in the top 50 offensively, but you're gonna have to score some points and do something right on offense to be competitive and win some games.

[snarling Bull]

Taggart has more money than Jim ever did for his assistants. There is no need to worry about getting over the hump with our current staff because as we can all see the hump isn't even in sight

[Ghost]

 

 

 

Offensive rankings can be deceptive**** There is nothing deceptive about an offensive ranking our team sits on, as well as any of the other offenses ranked in the triple digits.

 

Can you show me a team with an offense that was ranked in the triple digits that ever had double digit wins?? Probably not. If you want to have success at any level (P5, FCS, the tragedy that is the AAC) in the win column you have to have an offense ranked better than 100. I don't think anyone is calling for our offense to be scoring 50 points a game or be ranked even in the top 50 offensively, but you're gonna have to score some points and do something right on offense to be competitive and win some games.

 

 

Wasnt saying that I think we CAN have double digit wins with a triple digit offense. I was saying that I dont care. I dont care if we win 6-3 every game. However, I do care if we lose 6-3 every game. If we are going to lose, I'd rather not be put to sleep at the same time. I will take a 49-45 loss every week. Fine. Make it sexy.