Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Report Card Time!







First off, let me write about how thrilled I was to listen to the Columbia win over Villanova last night on my iPhone.

I bought the new upgraded ap that gives you the audio for CU games wherever you go and it's well worth it. 

Getting back to the win, it was an impressive game and WELL-FINISHED considering the fact that Lions BBall under Coach Kyle Smith has had some horrific blown leads in key games in his short tenure. 

Well done! 



Now back to football...

Today begins the very long dissection and study of the 2012 season.

I want to grade every part of the team starting now with the offense. 



On one hand, you could get excited about the fact that the Lions finally got a good running game going this year. You could jump for joy that QB Sean Brackett got back over the 50% completion rate mark and established a short passing attack with multiple weapons like Connor Nelligan and Chris Connors.




But the real numbers don't lie: Columbia's touchdown and total points scored numbers fell hard and the sacks allowed figure was... a disgrace. 

Most of this was because of the offensive line. Head Coach Pete Mangurian's "Grand Experiment," (my title), to go with a lighter, faster offensive line just didn't work. Perhaps the players didn't implement the plan properly, but it's hard to see how they could have been effective with the size disparities they faced week in and week out. There is chatter out there that Mangurian went with taller players as recruits in the hopes of getting them to put on weight between years one and two. If that's the plan, we have to give it an incomplete for now.  

But the offense was certainly more exciting, and the play calling improved as the year went on. That's compared to the same bad play calling we saw for the six years prior to 2012. 

And the development of a deep and talented wide receiving corps was a major success. WR Coach Wendell Davis gets a big thumbs up for a job obviously well done. 

I would do the same for RB Coach Chad Nice, but I'm not sure he can get the credit for RB Marcorus Garrett getting healthy. We also didn't see a deep bunch at all in the RB corps like we did from the receivers. But Nice deserves some kudos for helping Garrett hit the 900+ yard mark with that O-line. 

Breaking the Offense down by unit:


Quarterback: B

Brackett had his problems, particularly earlier in the season with his accuracy, but he still had a lot of good moments and executed nicely under tremendous pressure in several contests like the Penn game, the Yale game, and of course the Cornell game. One can only wonder how well he could have done with less of a constant rush.


Running Backs: B+

Garrett's season was A- or even a A in quality, but he was too alone in carrying the running load to give the entire running unit that high a mark. I liked what I saw briefly from Cameron Molina in the Penn game, and I had predicted he would make an impact as a freshman. But we all need to see more.


Wide Receivers: A

There some cases of the dropsies early in the year, but how can you complain about what was the strongest unit on the team? Consider the fact that all the leading WR's from 2011 graduated, but there was so much new talent developed this season, who noticed? It will be very interesting to see if the crew of Nelligan, Connors, Gross, Jake Wanamaker, Louis DiNovo and even guys like Ryan Flannery and Scooter Hollis can gel as well with a new QB in 2013. TE Hamilton Garner took a bit of a step back this season, but mostly because there were a lot more guys to throw to. He could still have a big senior year as a receiver too. And fellow TE Nick Durham also looked good as he got a lot of playing time as a freshman. 


Offensive Line: D-

The only reason this unit doesn't get an F is because there was at least enough coherence here to get Garrett a strong season. Otherwise, you could point to almost every one of the Lions' seven losses and pin them on the front five. It's not that they showed no skill, but the offensive linemen just weren't big enough or experienced enough to get the job done. The experience part will improve by next year, but will these guys get better? 

This year, anyone who didn't already know learned the hard way that nothing really works on a football team without a decent offensive line. It does feel like this season was sacrificed slightly in order for the Mangurian regime to create the building blocks on the offensive line. One HAS to think that allowing returning two-time All Ivy honoree Scott Ward to play more could have helped the Lions win more games. Hopefully, Mangurian knows what he's doing and the future will be packed with a lot more wins to justify moves that were so questionable to the outsiders', (and even a lot of insiders'), eyes.


OVERALL GRADE: D

34 comments:

jock/doc said...

Jake,
There has been a meme this year on the blog about the size of the OL. Firstly, we won three times as many games this year. I predict six (6) wins for next season.
What was your grade for the offense in 2011? We did no better last year vs the Ivy league.
We were 6th in the league in passing and 7th in the league in running in each year.Granted we gave up many fewer sacks in 2011.
I ask you what advantage was the large line last year. Experience is key to playing on the OL. Most Ivy winners have lots of upper classmen who have jelled as a unit. Perhaps their inexperience and not their size caused the sacks to get out of hand. These guys will be much bigger and much better next season!
We need to get better at a lot of things like KO returns and KO coverage. We need more playmakers for interceptions etc.

oldlion said...

The OL was starting three first years and one sophomore by year end. The obvious strategy is to recruit tall OLs who have the frame to get a lot bigger. Kuklinski and Lawrence are each around 6'7", and each can add a good fifty pounds. So let's see what they look like next year. I would have graded Garrett as an A. He rushed for not quite 1,000 yards behind a very young OL. If McDonagh develops as I think he will, and the OL develops as it should, Garrett will break the Reese record next season. On the WR front, CoachM said that Gross,can be a special player.

RedTiger61 said...

doc/jock .... certainly inexperience hurts ... but size does too whrn you are outmanned by 35-50 lbs ... one classic example was versus Harvard on the goal line ... I saw one of the kids get pushed pushed back into the backfield so that the RB tripped over him ... we got minus yards on the play .... how does a lineman on the goal line get blown back off the line ??? .... was it his inexperience or his lack of size or both ??? ... even Mangurian knew ... how many plays on short yardage plays did he have Brackett in shotgun and called a pass play versus having under center and running a dive play ?? .. it says a lot about his confidence in the O-line

#1 Lion said...

Jake-

Overall, good job, however, I disagree in a few areas. It seems like your grading system was measured against previous Columbia teams rather than the League. For example, Brackett, although courageouse to survive hat pourous offensive line, was a "C" at best. The QB coach/Offensive Coordinator should get a "D" because they failed to recognize Brackett's strength and refused to deviate from an unsuccessful game plan.

RBs - Garrett deserves an "A" for running for his life! Our FB was (is) a Hobbit who can't block, so he either puts on weight and learns how to block, or loses weight and helps Garrett. The RB coach deserves ALL of the credit for developing Garrett, regardless if he was a Wilson recruit. Good job!!!

D-Line - Fair Grade!

O-Line-"F". By far, the WORST in the league (with Cornell a close second). As a former offensive lineman, Mangurrian should be embarrassed. Also, WHY are we still making excuses for this guy's experiment of a leaner, smaller, and faster O-Line? It failed, plain and simple. This is not an opinion, it's a fact! We were an embarrassment! I don't blame he kids at all, I blame the staff!

Linebackers: B/B+ w/Zach O getting an A

DBs - C- Far too small and slow. Nobody taught tese kids how to wrap up and tackle. They're trying to tackle by impact and RBs/WRs bounced off them all year long! Underclassmen werevNOT ready to play at this level and we were exposed by the other coaches! Unlike Anthony Gaffney at Princeton, for example.

Kicking: C. Clearly, the talent is there! Can we rent a kicking coach to help these guys out. We could have won 1-2 additional games this year.

WR - B. Again, I am measuring them against he League... Yes, by far the best improvement over LY! However, way too many balls were dropped and NOBODY was a serious deep threat! Would like to see a big TE step up next year!

Overall grade: D! Mangurran was clearly out-coached in the Fordham, Dartmouth, and Penn games. This was something that we were asssured would not happen. Playing underclassmen who were clearly not ready was unfair to those kids; especially on he O-Line! The Marrist game was a joke by ANY measure. Half of Yale's team was injured when they played us, the game NEVER should have been hat close. Yes, we beat Cornell (great second half team effort)! An easily avoidable controversy was allowing the team to dress for home games. Mangurrian was (is) either blind, or stupid because he never got it. And if he did get it, but still chose to do it HIS way, then he's an idiot!

Regarding recruiting... We need impactful transfers! Wannamaker was not a threat to anyone. He was okay this year, and will be good, but we need impact people! Go after Childress' brother, he 6'5" QB from WEST Virginia. Check out the JUCO route and stick them in General Studies! Find some military personnel and have them apply through the Yellow Ribbon Program. We need to think outside the box to succeed!!!

oldlion said...

A few responses to #1Lion. The DBs don't tackle properly because they don't wrap up, agreed. The reason is that they see NFL DBs who don't wrap up either. Earlier in the year they didn't start to turn and play the ball. I saw some improvement in that area, but tackling needs to be taught. On the OL, it was also terrible last year, when we averaged about 290. I don't think that we had some sort of grand experiment. The coaches saw that we had some fat, slow OLs and told them to lose some weight. I think they also decided to play for the future on the OL by playing some very tall guys who have the frames to carry about 50 more pounds, like Lawrence and Kuklinski, when they get them in the weight room. I am not in favor of using GS as a sort of transfer pen, period. I want some transfers, but I want them in the College, since Ivy banding requirements require that we only recruit players who meet certain academic requirements. Enough for today, time to get ready to watch the parade with my granddaughter. Happy Thanksgiving to all who love Columbia football.

Anonymous said...

How do you grade the new head football coach?

LionEsq said...

Problem with transfers at CU is the core curriculum. If you're an Ivy level transfer academically and a football player, would you choose to try the core plus a major in three years or go somewhere with more choices? And GS has specific requirements. I think have to be a bit older. Maybe grab a Brigham Young lineman coming back from his mission?
As for the O-line, CU started going for height successfully under Wilson. He had a basketball team on the squad. Last year's line was decimated by injuries, not true this year. O-line coach was retained by Mangurian. Not sure what's going on there, but let's hope this year's step backward is a foundation for two steps forward next year.

#1 Lion said...

Way too many assumptions out there... You guys are assuming that Mangurrian wanted tall players, only to put weight on them when they arrive. That is just an excuse in my book with no fact behind it. RE: Transfers, anything after Soph Year should go through GS, like Galen Snyder did (from Duke) and John Robinson (SMU) - both GREAT players. On the other hand, Childress (Texas A&M) and Wannamaker (SW Texas), as Frosh transfers, went through CC. Any JUCO should go through GS. We had 1-2 basketball players do that a feww years ago (Ron Hold comes to mind). We have this opportunity, USE IT!

#1 Lion said...

Head Coaching Grade: D... Good job at RB (only one guy though) and LBs were good. Yes, three "wins" (two were disgraceful), but Head Coaching errors cost us wins against Penn, Dartmouth and Fordham. VERY POOR job dealing with upper classmen - not allowing them to dress for home games. Playing underclassmen who couldn't block, tackle or run. Did not utilize Bracket's skill set. Only two 1st Team All-Ivy, 1 second team, and 1 HM. Embarrassing!

Anonymous said...

I would have given Brackett an A for unbelievable effort and results given the poor coaching. The coach gets an F for failing to using a great quarterback intelligently ..I hope the coach can show he can learn..he did lose three games for sure. We wish him good luck. And you wonder what would have been the results this year if there had been some plays for Brackett to run. The seniors deserve A for tolerance and good results - onward for next year.

oldlion said...

I totally disagree with the knocks on Mangurian for failing to use Brackett properly. Brackett wasn't the same player after that brutal hit he took in the Fordham game last season at Rosé Hill. They made him into a pocket passer to keep him on the field, and it worked despite the fact that we had a very young and inexperienced OL. As far as Mangurian, he got a vote of confidence from Bollinger on tweeter yesterday.

#1 Lion said...

OldLion, Come on... Oooooh, a "Tweet" by Bolinger (who could care less about football) is a vote of confidence. Big deal! Soverin at least would attend each home game (and some away games). If you can't see that tnhey used Brackett incorrcetly, then ther is no use in responding. comments like that come from Blind sheep who follow the Hot Dog Committee.

Yes, Bracket deserves a Columbia "A" for the effort and everyuthing that he endured, I TOTALLY AGREE. However, in the League, he deserves a "C".

oldlion said...

Response to #1 Lion: I loved the way Brackett played when he was healthy a few years ago. My point is that he was used differently this year to keep him in one piece and to get him through the season. And I have no illusions about Bollinger, although I did take some cold comfort from the fact that he did give Pete a nod of recognition. Let's face it, Pete is our best hope right now to improve our program, so I for one intend to support him.

Anonymous said...

agree with comment by #1 Lion that begins "Head Coaching Grade D..."

Roar Lion said...

Brackett got sacked close to 40 times -- and he's a mobile QB. What will happen to McDonough next year if the line doesn't improve dramatically? It doesn't matter if they were freshman, they couldn't pass protect and they couldn't get any push at the goal line on multiple occasions. As for this theory that Pete wanted to play tall OLs -- Ward is 6'-7" and All-Ivy and they benched him. This fan, who thinks better days are ahead, can only infer that winning was not the top priority this year. I'd give the coaches a C. Three wins is not a terrible result, and the team played with poise down the stretch vs. Yale and Cornell, but more than a few coaching decisions were head-scratchers, including benching Ward, no running plays for SB and Nick Gerst never seeing the field. Let's hope the coaches improve and the OL gains weight.

RedTiger61 said...

Fellas ... grading this year is meaningless ... Nabgurian's objective for being graded is Year 3 (maybe Year 2) .... his intent all along was to take an INC this year ... he did some good things .... people respect our possesion recievers ... Gross may be the deep threat we were hoping for ... the D-line should be strong again next year and so should the LB corps ... I disagree with most in believing that these DB's will be pretty decent next year ... the O-line is still a work in progress .... it'll be up to the new Strength Coach to exercise some magic (no pun intended) ... QB will be a batle between McDonogh and Trumbell (s.p. ?) ... RB's, who knows ... Molina looked good in the 7 caries he had at Pen, but that is not enough to have an idea about next year .... I am positive Mangurian will be telling recruits that they can play right away if they come to CU ... again ... we ALL want to get the sense we will be competitive, but undfortunately we won't know for anther year ir two ...

#1 Lion said...

On to recruiting... This is what Columbia has for GS:

http://gs.columbia.edu/eligibility-athletics

So it is very simple, they CAN admit qualified JUCO kids that DO NOT go against our CC "asks" with admissions.

In two years, we should have a total of 7-8 JUCO players on the team (3-4 this year, 3-4 next year) within two years. This should be a constant flow. It's not that hard! Seriously, you get the best of both worlds!!!


And this is what Cornell has...
http://cals.cornell.edu/admissions/apply/transfer/transfer-agreements/


For all of you that claim to have access to Mangurrian, his staff, or the Hot Dog Committee, send them the first link! This would put us in 1st/2nd place within three years!

The next questions would be WHY hasn't Kevin Smith used this as well? Please forward to him too...

oldlion said...

I am strongly opposed to using GS, with its non-existent admissions standards, as a dumping ground for players who have no business in the Ivies playing for us. Let's keep our standards.

#1 Lion said...

WHY would you be assuming the worst? Ron Holt, a basketball transfer in the 90s went to Air Force Academy for a year, then JUCO for a year before transfering to Columbia. This is very short-sighted of you, OldLion, to assume that ALL JUCO (or Military Academy transfers) are dumb and do not meet standards. Open your mind!

Anonymous said...

GS has an acceptance rate of 23%, which makes it more selective than Barnard, Wellesley, Colgate, Oberlin, and on and on. If Cornell can play kids from the hotel school and the ag school, we should be able to play GS students.

Anonymous said...

GS contains 25% of the undergrads at Columbia and has the highest average GPA of the undergrad schools at Columbia.

oldlion said...

GS advertises for students. It is a money maker for the university. I do not believe the 23% acceptance rate. Call me close minded, but my affection is for the College. I would rather win with students who can qualify for the College (or SEAS).

Anonymous said...

News Flash... WE DON'T WIN! Let's shake it up... Think outside the box and WIN!

Anonymous said...

Sid Luckman was a GS graduate! Now what...

Jake said...

Yep. Back then it was called "New College". You can look it up.

oldlion said...

Let's just agree to disagree. To me using GS to bring in a bunch of ringers to play football isn't what Ivy League sports is all about.

Jake said...

Whom do you admire more, the 18 year-old whose parents have prepped him all his life with SAT tutors and BS extracurriculars or the 22 year-old just back from Afghanistan who could have used his GI Bill money to chase tail and and easy degree at Arizona St. but chooses GS instead? Think long and hard before you answer.

#1 Lion said...

Well said Jake!

Anonymous said...

What does it matter about the school they are admitted to? By being biased against GS you basically go against the whole diversification concept the University strives towards.
Icing the upperclassmen, a thin o line, keeping a QB in the pocket because of the assumption that this is the only way he can stay healthy, keeping an all ivy lineman on the bench, and the list goes on. How can you grade this coach out at anything above an F. Ah the 3 wins and a nice mention by the president. Perhaps the president mentioned him because he heard the rumblings and thought somebody actually cared what he thought.
Seriosuly, what we know is what has been tried hasn't worked. We aren't going to recruit our way out of this, trust me, I was recruited as a 3rd tier player and can assure you I didn't finish at that spot. My point is most coaches are not good at assessing talent so get the transfers, entry through whatever school, and try to build the team. Wiley wasn't recruited as a d linemen but as a running back and they weren't thinking he was going to be a d linemen. Again, get some beef up front, find some speed, get better dbacks (btw, saying the dbacks don't tackle correctly because of what the pro's do is a cop out...they are pro's these kids play at columbia, they should feel free to admit that they are not pro material)...tell the coaches to put their ego's aside.
Pigpen

Anonymous said...

Two thoughts from a current student:

1. That Bollinger twitter account is a parody, so don't take anything it says as coming from the top.

2. I don't agree with Jake's straw man comparison of CC and GS students. The diversity of students in CC (or GS) cannot be adequately summarized in such a dismissive way. And there's much to admire in the many, many classmates of mine who come from diverse and difficult backgrounds and work hard every day in CC. We should be pursuing all possible avenues to find good football players, but there's no reason to pit the schools against each other. In the end we are all in it for the same cause — Columbia.

CC '14

#1 Lion said...

CC'14- I stand corrected, there should have been some players stuck in the stands or home games... And YOU would be one of them.

Jake said...

Of course not all CC students are pampered automatons, and not all GS students are heroes. But my comparison was made in response to someone who was unfairly generalizing about GS students. The unbelievable nasty comments CC students often make about Barnard, GS, and even SEAS students are sickening to the core. To still hear stuff like that from alums, is even worse.

Anonymous said...

Jake, I agree with you that the nasty comments made by CC students about their Barnard, GS and SEAS peers are disgusting. One only needs to read the comments section in the Spec or blogs such as Ivygate to be shocked at the enmity.

I lay this entire phenomenon at the feet of the US News rankings. CC students believe, incorrectly in my opinion, that less exclusive admissions standards at Barnard, GS and SEAS keep their own US News ranking lower than it otherwise would be. It's sad that, as Columbia's ranking has risen, the internecine warfare has gotten worse. Back when we were ranked in the double digits, nobody really bothered with the details. Now that we're tied for fourth, Columbia students are obsessed with our ranking and wrongly believe that, if we could jettison Barnard, GS and SEAS, we would be ranked with HYP.

Thank you for voicing your opinion that the criticism of CC students against their fellow Columbia students is sickening. I agree.

CC '14 said...

I completely agree with Jake and anon who say that comments against our fellow students are disgusting. And it is important to remember that only a determined, small minority of current CC students think that way—they just tend to be the people who want to take advantage of an anonymous forum to spread their hate. Most CC students have friends from all four schools, and I certainly couldn't imagine CU without them. My point was simply that defending GSers by stereotyping CC students doesn't accomplish anything as far as bringing our schools together.

And, #1 Lion, I'm not sure what I've done to deserve your ire. But I have no problem sitting in the stands, because I am not (nor have I ever been) a member of the football team. And I've watched 28 of the last 30 Columbia games from the stands, so I'm quite comfortable there by this point.