Incoming Freshman QB

[The Jackal]

Coaches can learn and grow just like players can.

I’m not giving up on CCH and GQ. This spring was tough for them, but I know they are smart guys that know how to win and I’m willing to say that this is part of THEIR development as coaches. Remember, entering this season Clay and staff were 18-6 in SoCon play.

The issue is not whether CCH and GQ are 'good' coaches. I think that trips some folks up. We know GQ was tremendously successful for many years. We know CCH has a long track record of success as well.

But, for whatever reason(s), they are not the right fit for the Furman football program at this point in time. Virtually no coaching staff with this group's trendline has ever turned things around.

And really that's obvious also from this simple fact - they clearly didn't see it coming. So that means they are unable to accurately assess the competitiveness of the program . . . the idea that same staff will now not only make a dramatic improvement in that area, but then also dramatically improve in recruiting, schemes, preparation . . . unfortunately the likelihood of that is near zero.

Big picture, it maybe shouldn't be completely surprising that the 'let's get the band back together' strategy for hiring coaches was not really the way to go. I liked the hire at the time and the early returns, but now it's clear that it hasn't worked out.

I think some of you are also over reacting and plagued with confirmation bias. Let's look at what we know.

1. Furman was picked to finish first in the conference. We missed that mark, certainly, but it was not as though it was widely thought that Furman was without coaching or talent. In fact, most media and coaches think the opposite.

2. Furman went 3-4. Not where we want to be, but its not like we went 0-7.

3. As bad as our offense looked at times, we finished essentially middle of the pack in most offensive categories. The two areas where we really stood out as having a bad season were sacks and turnovers.

4. Our defense is good. They'll continue to be better.

5. Our staff and players endured a spring season where nearly half the teams nationally didn't play or quit midseason. Very few teams nationally have looked strong.

Things didn't look great this spring. The coaches and players need to get that corrected. But I do not believe it is as bad as many of you think it is, especially considering the pretty strong track record this coaching staff has put together to this point.

[Affirm]

Coaches can learn and grow just like players can.

I’m not giving up on CCH and GQ. This spring was tough for them, but I know they are smart guys that know how to win and I’m willing to say that this is part of THEIR development as coaches. Remember, entering this season Clay and staff were 18-6 in SoCon play.

The issue is not whether CCH and GQ are 'good' coaches. I think that trips some folks up. We know GQ was tremendously successful for many years. We know CCH has a long track record of success as well.

But, for whatever reason(s), they are not the right fit for the Furman football program at this point in time. Virtually no coaching staff with this group's trendline has ever turned things around.

And really that's obvious also from this simple fact - they clearly didn't see it coming. So that means they are unable to accurately assess the competitiveness of the program . . . the idea that same staff will now not only make a dramatic improvement in that area, but then also dramatically improve in recruiting, schemes, preparation . . . unfortunately the likelihood of that is near zero.

Big picture, it maybe shouldn't be completely surprising that the 'let's get the band back together' strategy for hiring coaches was not really the way to go. I liked the hire at the time and the early returns, but now it's clear that it hasn't worked out.

I think some of you are also over reacting and plagued with confirmation bias. Let's look at what we know.

1. Furman was picked to finish first in the conference. We missed that mark, certainly, but it was not as though it was widely thought that Furman was without coaching or talent. In fact, most media and coaches think the opposite.

2. Furman went 3-4. Not where we want to be, but its not like we went 0-7.

3. As bad as our offense looked at times, we finished essentially middle of the pack in most offensive categories. The two areas where we really stood out as having a bad season were sacks and turnovers.

4. Our defense is good. They'll continue to be better.

5. Our staff and players endured a spring season where nearly half the teams nationally didn't play or quit midseason. Very few teams nationally have looked strong.

Things didn't look great this spring. The coaches and players need to get that corrected. But I do not believe it is as bad as many of you think it is, especially considering the pretty strong track record this coaching staff has put together to this point.

It was very bad.
“Pretty strong track record this coaching staff has put together”?
Depends on what you want to accept as “pretty strong”.
Good enough, I would say, but not “pretty strong”.

[Furmanoid]

Coaches can learn and grow just like players can.

I’m not giving up on CCH and GQ. This spring was tough for them, but I know they are smart guys that know how to win and I’m willing to say that this is part of THEIR development as coaches. Remember, entering this season Clay and staff were 18-6 in SoCon play.

The issue is not whether CCH and GQ are 'good' coaches. I think that trips some folks up. We know GQ was tremendously successful for many years. We know CCH has a long track record of success as well.

But, for whatever reason(s), they are not the right fit for the Furman football program at this point in time. Virtually no coaching staff with this group's trendline has ever turned things around.

And really that's obvious also from this simple fact - they clearly didn't see it coming. So that means they are unable to accurately assess the competitiveness of the program . . . the idea that same staff will now not only make a dramatic improvement in that area, but then also dramatically improve in recruiting, schemes, preparation . . . unfortunately the likelihood of that is near zero.

Big picture, it maybe shouldn't be completely surprising that the 'let's get the band back together' strategy for hiring coaches was not really the way to go. I liked the hire at the time and the early returns, but now it's clear that it hasn't worked out.

You’re going to hate this, but I pretty much agree with you. In Theater 11 we learned about the “willing suspension of disbelief”, and I used that to remain a little positive for awhile, but it got really difficult to continue believing in the staff. Not seeing the disaster coming is one thing, but they didn’t seem to see it while it was happening! There are times when a little desperation is warranted, but we seemed to stick to the plan in the hopes that it would suddenly start working. No matter who we played, it didn’t work. The trajectory is bad even though it is masked somewhat by the downward trend in the conference as a whole.

I do disagree that there is near zero chance to turn it around. I think there is maybe a 20% chance that an incoming QB will be really, really good and will be able to win without an OL. There is about a 50% chance that the conference while decline faster than we decline. There are signs of disarray everywhere. So we may at least appear to be much better. But nothing good will happen if the coaches don’t recognize how bad they’ve screwed up and start doing things differently.

After 2022, if things aren’t looking a lot better, I hope we chop down that Furman coaching tree thing once and for all.

[FUBeAR]

After 2022, if things aren’t looking a lot better, I hope we chop down that Furman coaching tree thing once and for all.

Absolutely!

We need to find a Coaching Staff from one of the many other Coaching Trees with experience Coaching/Recruiting for a small private high academics school that has produced WAY MORE than 18 FCS Playoffs appearances, 14 Conference Championships, 3 National Championship Game appearances, and a National Championship.

FUBeAR will wait...

(BTW - any mention of Wof-Fraud in response to this post & you will have earned an internet version of this)

[Furmanoid]

I figured FUBeAR might not like that. But look, Furman got good because a PC guy, Art Baker, came along and hired the two best HS coaches in the state (both USC guys), Satterfield from Eau Claire and Irmo and Sheridan from Eau Claire, OW and Airport. Satterfield brought along his former Eau Claire standout Johnson (Clemson guy). So if a tree ever really worked it was an Eau Claire tree. No FU background with any of those guys before they all came in at the same time.

[The Jackal]

Coaches can learn and grow just like players can.

I’m not giving up on CCH and GQ. This spring was tough for them, but I know they are smart guys that know how to win and I’m willing to say that this is part of THEIR development as coaches. Remember, entering this season Clay and staff were 18-6 in SoCon play.

The issue is not whether CCH and GQ are 'good' coaches. I think that trips some folks up. We know GQ was tremendously successful for many years. We know CCH has a long track record of success as well.

But, for whatever reason(s), they are not the right fit for the Furman football program at this point in time. Virtually no coaching staff with this group's trendline has ever turned things around.

And really that's obvious also from this simple fact - they clearly didn't see it coming. So that means they are unable to accurately assess the competitiveness of the program . . . the idea that same staff will now not only make a dramatic improvement in that area, but then also dramatically improve in recruiting, schemes, preparation . . . unfortunately the likelihood of that is near zero.

Big picture, it maybe shouldn't be completely surprising that the 'let's get the band back together' strategy for hiring coaches was not really the way to go. I liked the hire at the time and the early returns, but now it's clear that it hasn't worked out.

I think some of you are also over reacting and plagued with confirmation bias. Let's look at what we know.

1. Furman was picked to finish first in the conference. We missed that mark, certainly, but it was not as though it was widely thought that Furman was without coaching or talent. In fact, most media and coaches think the opposite.

2. Furman went 3-4. Not where we want to be, but its not like we went 0-7.

3. As bad as our offense looked at times, we finished essentially middle of the pack in most offensive categories. The two areas where we really stood out as having a bad season were sacks and turnovers.

4. Our defense is good. They'll continue to be better.

5. Our staff and players endured a spring season where nearly half the teams nationally didn't play or quit midseason. Very few teams nationally have looked strong.

Things didn't look great this spring. The coaches and players need to get that corrected. But I do not believe it is as bad as many of you think it is, especially considering the pretty strong track record this coaching staff has put together to this point.

It was very bad.
“Pretty strong track record this coaching staff has put together”?
Depends on what you want to accept as “pretty strong”.
Good enough, I would say, but not “pretty strong”.

Here's an example.

In his first three (2017, 2018, 2019) years, Clay Hendrix was 22-14 with a SoCon title and two second place finishes. Remember, he took over a 3-win team.

In his first three (1994, 1995, 1996) year, Bobby Johnson was 18-17. Johnson didn't finish higher than 3rd in SoCon play until his 6th season as head coach when he won his first SoCon title. I'm sure Furman's jump to national prominence had nothing to do with the arrival of Louis Ivory either.

I'm not carrying water for Clay Hendrix. He has a record. He's won everywhere he's coached.

There's plenty to criticize this spring season. Criticism is warranted. At times, we looked awful.

How much of that is system issues that you all seem convinced are present? How much is a one off in a completely strange season where hardly any team looks good on a national scale?

All I am saying is to chill out. Furman's got a solid coaching staff. Guys that have won a bunch of football games. Even in the context of Furman football they've won a bunch of football games at this point in their tenure. We aren't going to dominate every season. The goal is to figure out what's broke and fix it.

[FUBeAR]

I figured FUBeAR might not like that. But look, Furman got good because a PC guy, Art Baker, came along and hired the two best HS coaches in the state (both USC guys), Satterfield from Eau Claire and Irmo and Sheridan from Eau Claire, OW and Airport. Satterfield brought along his former Eau Claire standout Johnson (Clemson guy). So if a tree ever really worked it was an Eau Claire tree. No FU background with any of those guys before they all came in at the same time.

Yeah - FUBeAR kinda lived thru that history lesson.

Let’s go back to botany. You’re talking about seeds that were scattered (3 Colleges, 3 HS’s mentioned...you coulda added Texas Tech, y’know). And you’re omitted the DNA / pollination provided by Steve Robertson (Newberry), Eric Hyman (UNC), Robbie Caldwell (hey, an FU guy), Eddie Williamson (Davidson), Ted Cain (another Furman guy), Ken Pettus (Newberry), et al. Those seeds / DNA / pollinators / anthers / pistils / stamens .... whatever - all landed off of Old Buncombe Road ... and a big ol’ tree grew that produced the sweetest & most abundant fruit any small, high academics school’s Football Program has EVER produced...and is still producing...as my good friend, Jackal, notes.

This Spring’s results sucked for us.

Our results also sucked for 5 straight lost games at the start of 1979 & I couldn’t go out in GVL wearing Furman Football gear without dumba$$e$ coming up to me and asking about or telling me that Furman needed to fire this failure of a Coaching Staff. They said things like “Coaches just don’t get better. They are who they are!” and “Our Offense is terrible. Why are we running Veer option out of an I formation? That’s just stupid. Nobody does that . We need to run the Wishbone and win with that exciting brand of Offense.” and “These just aren’t the right Coaches for Furman right now. They’ve proven that the last 5 weeks. No way they’ll turn it around. Obviously they don’t even know what’s wrong. And if they do, they’re just incapable of fixing it.” ... You know - really smart people - criticizing / calling “FAIL!” on at least 2 future NCAA Coaches of the Year, among many, many, many other honors that Staff went on to win as Head & Assistant Coaches.

Still waiting on someone to point out that forest of trees that comes anywhere even close to what the Furman Coaching Tree (Estd. 1975 in GVL) has delivered ... and continues to deliver as leaders of young men & of this Football Program.

[Furmanoid]

So you're saying we should have kept Fowler?

[FUBeAR]

So you're saying we should have kept Fowler?

Are you saying that Coach Hendrix’ & Staff’s Teams have delivered the same level of results delivered by Coach Fowler’s & Staff’s Teams?

[Davemeister]

Coaching Trees like all other trees have to be pruned.

[FUBeAR]

Coaching Trees like all other trees have to be pruned.

not exactly...

“Pruning is rarely needed to maintain sequoias in perfect form and will disfigure the tree if done incorrectly.”

[apaladin]

Coaches can learn and grow just like players can.

I’m not giving up on CCH and GQ. This spring was tough for them, but I know they are smart guys that know how to win and I’m willing to say that this is part of THEIR development as coaches. Remember, entering this season Clay and staff were 18-6 in SoCon play.

The issue is not whether CCH and GQ are 'good' coaches. I think that trips some folks up. We know GQ was tremendously successful for many years. We know CCH has a long track record of success as well.

But, for whatever reason(s), they are not the right fit for the Furman football program at this point in time. Virtually no coaching staff with this group's trendline has ever turned things around.

And really that's obvious also from this simple fact - they clearly didn't see it coming. So that means they are unable to accurately assess the competitiveness of the program . . . the idea that same staff will now not only make a dramatic improvement in that area, but then also dramatically improve in recruiting, schemes, preparation . . . unfortunately the likelihood of that is near zero.

Big picture, it maybe shouldn't be completely surprising that the 'let's get the band back together' strategy for hiring coaches was not really the way to go. I liked the hire at the time and the early returns, but now it's clear that it hasn't worked out.

I think some of you are also over reacting and plagued with confirmation bias. Let's look at what we know.

1. Furman was picked to finish first in the conference. We missed that mark, certainly, but it was not as though it was widely thought that Furman was without coaching or talent. In fact, most media and coaches think the opposite.

2. Furman went 3-4. Not where we want to be, but its not like we went 0-7.

3. As bad as our offense looked at times, we finished essentially middle of the pack in most offensive categories. The two areas where we really stood out as having a bad season were sacks and turnovers.

4. Our defense is good. They'll continue to be better.

5. Our staff and players endured a spring season where nearly half the teams nationally didn't play or quit midseason. Very few teams nationally have looked strong.

Things didn't look great this spring. The coaches and players need to get that corrected. But I do not believe it is as bad as many of you think it is, especially considering the pretty strong track record this coaching staff has put together to this point.

1. Obviously a misconception, they don’t think thst now.
2. It wasn’t 0-7 but easily could have been 1-6 but could have been better too.
3. CCH said the whole league was bad offensuvely and it was so we finished middle of the pack offensively in a bad offensive league.
4. Granted defense is much better than the O but has to learn how to get off the field on third down wnd quit giving up first downs on 3rd and 15+. Run defense was very good.
5. All the more reason we should have excelled instead of fading away and getting worse every week.

[Furmanoid]

So you're saying we should have kept Fowler?

Are you saying that Coach Hendrix’ & Staff’s Teams have delivered the same level of results delivered by Coach Fowler’s & Staff’s Teams?

What do results have to do with it? Looking at results is what stupid nonfootball people do. He was part of the tree. And even if he had a couple of bumps in the road, he was probably gonna turn it around and go to HOF's like those other guys, right?

[FUBeAR]

So you're saying we should have kept Fowler?

Are you saying that Coach Hendrix’ & Staff’s Teams have delivered the same level of results delivered by Coach Fowler’s & Staff’s Teams?

turn it around and go to HOF's like those other guys, right?

Yes, you are correct. I believe Coach Hendrix will do exactly that.

[The Jackal]

Coaches can learn and grow just like players can.

I’m not giving up on CCH and GQ. This spring was tough for them, but I know they are smart guys that know how to win and I’m willing to say that this is part of THEIR development as coaches. Remember, entering this season Clay and staff were 18-6 in SoCon play.

The issue is not whether CCH and GQ are 'good' coaches. I think that trips some folks up. We know GQ was tremendously successful for many years. We know CCH has a long track record of success as well.

But, for whatever reason(s), they are not the right fit for the Furman football program at this point in time. Virtually no coaching staff with this group's trendline has ever turned things around.

And really that's obvious also from this simple fact - they clearly didn't see it coming. So that means they are unable to accurately assess the competitiveness of the program . . . the idea that same staff will now not only make a dramatic improvement in that area, but then also dramatically improve in recruiting, schemes, preparation . . . unfortunately the likelihood of that is near zero.

Big picture, it maybe shouldn't be completely surprising that the 'let's get the band back together' strategy for hiring coaches was not really the way to go. I liked the hire at the time and the early returns, but now it's clear that it hasn't worked out.

I think some of you are also over reacting and plagued with confirmation bias. Let's look at what we know.

1. Furman was picked to finish first in the conference. We missed that mark, certainly, but it was not as though it was widely thought that Furman was without coaching or talent. In fact, most media and coaches think the opposite.

2. Furman went 3-4. Not where we want to be, but its not like we went 0-7.

3. As bad as our offense looked at times, we finished essentially middle of the pack in most offensive categories. The two areas where we really stood out as having a bad season were sacks and turnovers.

4. Our defense is good. They'll continue to be better.

5. Our staff and players endured a spring season where nearly half the teams nationally didn't play or quit midseason. Very few teams nationally have looked strong.

Things didn't look great this spring. The coaches and players need to get that corrected. But I do not believe it is as bad as many of you think it is, especially considering the pretty strong track record this coaching staff has put together to this point.

1. Obviously a misconception, they don’t think thst now.
2. It wasn’t 0-7 but easily could have been 1-6 but could have been better too.
3. CCH said the whole league was bad offensuvely and it was so we finished middle of the pack offensively in a bad offensive league.
4. Granted defense is much better than the O but has to learn how to get off the field on third down wnd quit giving up first downs on 3rd and 15+. Run defense was very good.
5. All the more reason we should have excelled instead of fading away and getting worse every week.

1. Could it be that the people that know and follow SoCon football better than you do had a higher opinion of Furman's team?

2. It could have been 1-6 or it could have been 6-1, too. Furman lead in the second half against everyone but the Citadel. Our special teams cost us several games as we attempted to replace our entire unit from 2019 except maybe the holder.

3. It's all relative each year. Maybe the offenses were worse than last year. Maybe the defenses are better. Furman, for instance, played UTC at full strength. Mercer played their backups. ETSU and Samford didn't play them at all.


I'm not suggesting we were stellar. I've said we had a lot of issues and looked terrible at times. I just resist the notion of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.