re: It's almost like Canada was good

Doesn't change the fact that there was a monsoon and 3 drive's on a short field is my point...

Those games are anomalies in statistics.

quote:

---

Wasn't the the most yards Bama gave up prior to AU?

---

nope
391 to Colorado State
308 to A&M (I know marginally better)
330 to Ms State

Alabama's schedule was also laughably bad before they played us. Not to mention, 54 of our yards came on one play. We couldn't sustain any real drives the entire game. We had one good drive. We had a 14 play 71 yard drive. We had it 1st and goal on the 5 and had to settle for a FG. Again, Canada's red zone issues showed up.

Look, I fully understand how good their defense is and has been. But if we are going to beat teams with good defenses we can't use that as an excuse. That's the same shite we've been saying for years now. I just didn't see anything this year that led me to believe Canada could have been the answer to our problems. It certainly looked a lot different, but as stated before, same end result in lack of points. We had almost identical outputs in points and yards per game as last season and it was actually slightly lower in both this year.

quote:

---

We had almost identical outputs in points and yards per game as last season and it was actually slightly lower in both this year.

---

Dont you think that could have something to do with the fact the we didnt have arguably the best Running back in college football this year and we did last year?

quote:

---

We couldn't sustain any real drives the entire game. We had one good drive.

---

I would argue that had more to do with the fact that etling couldn't connect on the throws. They were there we all saw that. The offense could of definitely won that game with a few catches instead of missed throws

quote:

---

Dont you think that could have something to do with the fact the we didnt have arguably the best Running back in college football this year and we did last year?

---

Fournette wasn't healthy and didn't play in 6 of our 12 games last year. So no I don't think that made much, if any, difference at all.

quote:

---

Nobody knew he was a Broyles award finalist or that he was the OC at the Pitt team that beat Clemson the year they won the NC

---

correct. the majority of our fans most likely did not know who the OC of Pittsburgh was until he became our OC. They would really have no reason to unless they made a point to survey all the OCs around the country.

quote:

---

So basically your saying our offense wasnt productive in 2016 either? Because we only averaged an impressive 12 more yards per game and .9 pts per game

---

I am, and before you say "well who was the OC," it is intellectually dishonest to say that what Ensminger did as an interim OC playing with the former OC's system is an accurate reflection of what he will or will not do in his own system. It is ridiculous to think he completely changed systems in one week in the middle of the season. And, in no way, am I advocating for Ensminger. The only thing I am saying is that I do not and never did believe that Canada was anything special. I thought the meltdown after losing him was ridiculous. Melting for losing Aranada would have been justified, but not Canada. If we had performed night and day better on offense, that would have been one thing, but we didn't, and I'm really tired of the Canada apologists that didn't say a word all year until he was leaving. I understand being frustrated with Orgeron being hired in the first place, i really do. I was pissed when it happened but learned to accept it because there's nothing I could do to change it. But that doesn't mean that Canada leaving was devastating either.

So firing a guy who you just hired one year ago as your first hire after basically stating your entire gameplan was based on hiring the best coordinators in the nation isnt a bad sign to you? Sounds pretty devastating to me gives you a bad look all around. I would wager it would make coaches pretty hesitant to look into coaching here. Especially after you admitted during the season that you meddled in the guys offense.

quote:

---

So firing a guy who you just hired one year ago as your first hire after basically stating your entire gameplan was based on hiring the best coordinators in the nation isnt a bad sign to you?

---

You can look at it that way. or you could look at it that O realized it simpky wasn't going to work and cut bait before things got worse. What would be more devastating? Force a toxic working relationship the expense of the team or mitigate the problem quickly? Look, I admit mistakes were made, it happens. Bad hires happen in all businesses even if proper vetting was done. You can never truly know if you'll work well with a colleague until you actually do.

quote:

---

Sounds pretty devastating to me gives you a bad look all around.

---

I just think devastating is an exaggeration. A problem, sure. A problem that can't be remedied, no.

quote:

---

I would wager it would make coaches pretty hesitant to look into coaching here.

---

possibly, and that's Orgeron's cross to bear if Ensminger doesn't work out. But, at least with Ensminger, we know we at least have a guy that gets along with the staff and a guy the team loves and respects. Keeping a guy on staff that clearly is toxic isn't beneficial to anyone, whatever the reason for the strain may be. And we'll never truly know what all went on behind closed doors, and I thin it's rather juvenile for people to conjure up stories to push whatever narrative they want to be true about what happened.

quote:

---

seems like a pattern with Canada. Why do you think that is? serious question. Maybe Canada doesn't like to hear any input from his head coach, which is kind of a problem because ultimately the head coach has a lot more on the line. I have no idea, but if he has accused two of his four P5 HCs of meddling and fired by another (NC State), that is rather odd don't you think?

---

I don't necessarily think it's odd. Wisconsin has had a specific offensive identity since Alvarez arrived in Madison. Based on what Bielema did at Arkansas, I think he wanted to mostly be faithful to that philosophy, so I can see where he didn't want Canada to stray too far from it.

Doeren's seat was just starting to get warm when he fired Canada. I read an article where Doeren said he wanted to try something different. Not unheard of for someone who mighy think his job security is getting flimsy.

Orgeron has shown to not have a firm idea of what he wants to do with his offense thus far. Based on everything that happened, I think Canada expected to have more autonomy and O wanted more input. I blame both of them for the underwhelming results, if that's true.