Let's not be too harsh on Head Coach Pete Mangurian.
The atrocity that was the 2013 season was truly a team effort by the entire coaching staff and an enabling administration.
To paraphrase Casey Stengel: "Can anyone here coach this game?"
But I don't want anyone to think I'm holding our coaches to a standard that's too high.
Instead of just saying, (factually), that this was the worst statistical season for any team in Ivy League history, I think it's only fair to compare this season's performance to a different recent poor season by a Columbia team just to put things in a proper perspective.
So let's compare this year's performance by offensive coordinator Jaime Elizondo based on the 2013 offensive stats vs. the stats of the 1-9 Columbia Lions of 2007 and the 2-8, (0-7 Ivy) 2005 Lions.
Just for reference, please remember that the 2007 Lions were 0-7 in the Ivies and were not competitive in too many games. It was definitely the worst season of the Norries Wilson era. The 2005 team was Bob Shoop's worst team by a mile.
Being measured against the performance of those teams should be very favorable to any competent assistant coach.
And as you will see, the 2013 offense wasn't even in the same LEAGUE as the worst teams Coaches Wilson and Shoop ever fielded at CU:
2013 Points Scored: 73
2007 Points Scored: 184
2005 Points Scored: 116
2013 1st Downs: 113
2007 1st Downs: 179
2005 1st Downs: 133
2013 Rushing Yardage: 519
2007 Rushing Yardage: 627
2005 Rushing Yardage: 464 (Hey! We got ONE!)
2013 Passing Yardage: 1,524
2007 Passing Yardage: 2,686
2005 Passing Yardage: 2,004
2013 Total Offensive Yards: 2,043
2007 Total Offensive Yards: 3,313
2005 Total Offensive Yards: 2,468
Don't Forget, Elizondo is ALSO the QB's coach, so let's compare the QB stats as well:
2013 Completion Percentage: .408
2007 Completion Percentage: .548
2005 Completion Percentage: .532
2013 TD Passes/INT's: 4/14
2007 TD Passes/INT's: 14/15
2005 TD Passes/INT's: 10/12
2013 QB Pass Efficiency: 70.7
2007 QB Pass Efficiency: 112.3
2005 QB Pass Efficiency: 102.90
2013 Sacks Allowed: 39
2007 Sacks Allowed: 28
2005 Sacks Allowed: 33
But HEY, far be it from me to be so cruel as to compare this 2013 offense to the juggernauts that were the 1-9 2007 Lions and the 2-8 2005 Lions. After all, they did win three games between them!
So let's compare this offense to the last team that went 0-10 in Ivy history, the 2008 Dartmouth Big Green!
2013 CU Points Scored: 73
2008 Dart Points Scored: 129
2013 1st Downs: 113
2008 Dart 1st Downs: 145
2013 Rushing Yardage: 519
2008 Dart Rushing Yardage: 434 (hey! ONE thing CU 2013 did better!)
2013 Passing Yardage: 1,524
2008 Dart Passing Yardage: 2,083
2013 Total Offensive Yards: 2,043
2008 Dart Total Offensive Yards: 2,517
2013 Completion Percentage: .408
2008 Dart Completion Percentage: .552
2013 TD Passes/INT's: 4/14
2008 Dart TD Passes/INT's: 7/16
2013 QB Pass Efficiency: 70.7
2008 Dart QB Pass Efficiency: 97.7
2013 Sacks Allowed: 39
2008 Dart Sacks Allowed: 24
I could show more, but the mercy rule is being applied.
Simply put, even when compared to one of the worst seasons in Columbia's last 20 years, this group still isn't even CLOSE statistically!
And the 2013 Lions aren't even that close statistically to the woeful 0-10 2008 Dartmouth Big Green.
How can these people still have their jobs?
46 comments:
Rich '66C
Jake,
There is re-building, and there is self-destruction. Your figures provide overwhelming proof of the latter.
This is what we must focus upon: do we destroy an entire cadre of unique student athletes (who could have been me or my team mates, or my son, or your son)in what has been shown by your stats to be a travesty of coaching and team building?
There is no rational,logical methodology that can justify the depths to which this program has fallen. None of us expected a miracle, but all of us (including our players) expected and deserved better than what we got. "Rebuilding" absolutely does not excuse the miserable, disgusting, dangerous and demoralizing performance we have seen. This is not on the players; we all know wher this sits.
Can't get Pete so you"re throwing Jaime under the bus.
If you're right about the "bully"
factor what makes you think Jamie is not a figurehead OC?
No, no... I foresee Jake doing a recap on ALL coaches, not just the ex-collegiate tennis player from Maryland who is masking as a OC for the Lions.
Qestion: where do we stand if you combine Pete's first two years?
If Columbia's numbers against the 2008 Dartmouth defense (which was really lousy) also are unfavorable, then that's really saying something.
Coach Jaime might want to teach our offensive line that "loitering" is not a "blocking technique". He might also want to stress the importance, when pass blocking, of "getting in somebody's way".
Like I've said before it's on the players not the coaching staff. If the players don't perform to my standards then they don't play period. Those that do play aren't up to my standard either so I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Help me out Jaime. What do we want to say here as a response?
The importance of a good OC can be illustrated by what happens when you have an incompetent OC. Our last few NW teams had a lot of talent, but the then-OC probably did more to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory than any coordinator has done in a long time. See, for example, how he managed to ruin Sean Brackett's junior season by the way he mishandled him beginning with the Fordham game that year. We have had a revolving door of coordinators in the first two years of the Mangurian regime. Draw your own inferences from the hasty departures of our first two coordinators.
to clear things up
I heard Mac Daniels left to take a better paying job for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. doubled his salary.
Lempa left to also get a much higher paying job at BC . Remember guys this IS a business for the coaches just as you make money in your own professions.
One problem for relatively medium paid assistants, is living in the NYC area. How about backing off these guys until after the holidays.
Who's the bully now?
McDaniels never intended to stay. His hire was a favor to Bob Kraft until the kid could get an NFL job.
comments on OCs especially at FCS level: this should be a creative guy that interjects fun into the system. Most FCS schools cannot recruit a power offense or a pro-style passing attack. The key then becomes to use what talent is available to create a successful and fun offense. The obvious example is Princeton. All they really did was take a look at their own playbook circa 1951, tweak it a little and, voila, an offense no one knew how to stop, who had the ball or what was happening. They were just plain fun to watch with ball. There are all sorts of offenses available from spread to modified single wing that are incorporated by FCS teams to be exciting and fun. Even with SB, an electric player, CU was seldom exciting to watch with the ball. An FCS OC should be a creative force for fun. Alas, that will not get you to the pros. Just ask Mark Trestman.
Rich '66
Or maybe we could, during pre-season, ensure that all our guys have received basic skills training, such as those employed by good high school teams. I'm not talking about sophisticated weird techniques; I'm describing blocking, tackling,pass defense, etc.
Before I even got involved with all this (after the 3rd game)I marvelled at the lack of these basic skills. My kid was actually better as a HS letterman. Way too small for college, but he was well trained. And this begs the question, who does the training here if the kids don't come in with it?
"an offense no one knew how to stop"
Dartmouth did. :)
You just confirmed that you have no idea of what bullying is.
minor point of fact, the 2005 Lions were 2-8, beating Fordham and Duquesne...
I keep going back to an interview on YouTube with Pete not long after he was hired. It was very informal,. you can easily find it yourselves. Pete had absolutely no one from his personal network to hire. Every one of his hires was through a lower level grapevine. There is no chemistry or common vision that is typical of the " coaching tree" style the profession encourages. All those guys are just mediocrity.
You're right about the 2-8. Fixed now.
Elon: Ball State offensive coordinator Rich Skrosky will be the new head coach at Elon. Skrosky has been an innovative and highly successful offensive coordinator on Pete Lembo's staff for years (been with Lembo since 2006). We think he will do well at Elon.
another ex CU coach
Good point about lack of basic football skills. We are supposed to "coach up" players. Although we assume that they have mastered basic skills by the time they get here, I just don't see much evidence of that. Our DBs faceguard and don't know when to turn and play the ball. We arm tackle and don't wrap up. Our WRs catch with their bodies and not their hands. Blocking technique is poor, as is footwork on pass protection. Those are for starters.
Sorry OldcLion, I beg to differ. If you read info on some of our players in high school , some won city and state championships, many of them had individual awards, so I believe the majority had basic football skills. Watch some video on these guys , they were good. Poor coaching does not enhance your strong points. Please don't say they have not mastered basic skills, it sounds like you are blaming them for our horrible season. I think we all agree that's not the case.
If Pete's taller, larger bodies recruited and placed in positions early had developed skills, they would have gotten much more offers from bigger schools. The reason why they weren't is because of the lack of ball skills, or development the coaching staff thought they could develop. So far, it hasn't panned out.
Not everyone falls into the above categories, but far too many do. Is that poor recruiting or poor coaching?
Maybe both. I keep saying about 18/20 returning kids with ample playing time will show better skills in 2014, regardless of coaching staff.
There is talent and desire in this bunch.
This the Ivy League. Not many of the approximate 700+ on the 8 rosters will ever be considered to be NFL prospects. Very few 5 star HS players qualify for Ivy acceptance. At best the Ivy League gets 3 star all district recruits, not all Americans. The difference is the successfull programs
have long established reputations of winning teams. This attracts the best coaches and the best players. Success breeds success. CU needs 5 to ten years of solid football to be able to get the best kids and the best coaches.
So true , my son really wanted to continue playing football. One of the top three players his junior and senior years. He feels very privileged to be attending an Ivy League school and takes football very serious as well.
Good for you and him. If he is a CU football player, I hope all of the negativity on this blog is not getting you down. Sounds like the kind of kid that will do well no matter what the W/L record.
Fact: offensive line did not even know the snap count until the 6th game of the year. Crazy..... Incompetent....coaches didn't want them to know it.
Hard to believe. Can you prove that?
If you are making this up, you're a sick puppy,
Lord knows there were a lot of problems with CU football and with Mangurian's administration. Saying that a guy who coached offensive lines at SMU, Stanford and LSU, and the Giants, Broncos, Falcons and Bucs doesn't know how to coach an offensive line at Columbia, forgot how, or wouldn't insist on proper coaching on his watch is awfully unlikely. Something is desperately wrong with this team and line play was a huge part of it, no doubt, but accusations like that just destroy the credibility of the speaker. Stick to the facts. There's plenty there.
To the very glib and NON-informative poster three comments above: You tell us what everyone already knows, that top national h.s. players usually don't show up in the Ivy League. Then you leap to the generalization that the successful Ivy teams have long reputations as winning programs, and that this attracts the best players and coaches, DUH. Then you tell us Columbia needs a five to ten-year run of solid football to be able to attract top players and coaches.
What you fail to mention is how Columbia is supposed to accomplish this when it hasn't for the past 60 years.
Gee, I wonder if the reason is a total lack of interest and commitment from the U's powers that be. And that makes me wonder if that comment was posted by someone named Lee, Bill, Dianne or Pete, Probably not. Probably just another apathetic Columbian who is not bothered by 60 years of failure.
Rich Skrosky, who coached under Shoop, is a very nice man. A Jersey boy, too, who hung out at the same bar I did, which a mutual friend owned. So I knew him slightly even before he came to Baker Field.(The coaches under both Both Bob Shoop and Norries seemed much more accessible, in general, and more personally open.) I suggest we all at least wish him well in his new job at a somewhat traditional foe of Columbia in basketball.
What we are now seeing from the powers that be is a classic circle the wagons technique reminiscent of the Nixon White House. Unless there is an insurgency campaign to get a former player with street cred on the board of trustees, somebody in his 40s like Des, Greg A or Rory W, all the pancake blocks in Spec will fall on deaf ears. What the CAEC should be doing is getting together an insurgency campaign to put somebody on the board. Today I read in Spec there was a campus ceremony to hoist the GS flag. Who is going to hoist the football flag?
Ridiculous comment. They would have been offsides 30 or more times a game. Next some one will say they weren't allowed to wear helmets. Come guys, keep your comments in the real world.
Lion,
You make my point exactly.
Harvard has the winning reputation. Same coach for about 25 years. I think there have been more than enough suggestions to fix the administration problems.
Do not care about last 60 years of failure. Looking only at 2014 and beyond.
Lion,
If you pole the FB squad and asked how many would have picked Harvard if offered. I'm afraid the number would be over 75%. If you have been accepting failure for 60 years, you are the problem, not the administration.
Rich '66
"If you have been accepting failure for 60 years, you are the problem, not the administration."
I don't know if you realized the incredible truth and message in your words, but that is the completely boiled down, condensed and distilled mantra of CAEC and many of the contributors here.
We know the administration is directly, though probably unconsciously, responsible for this horror show. Not just football, mind you, but the whole bloody mess which is CU sports.
But it has now finally become apparent that people outside the administration must intervene. Because CU does not and has never had the will or the ability to do this unilaterally. In other words, we must drag them kicking and screaming into reality if necessary. We would prefer to have them come to their senses in a more politic and proactive way, of course, but whatever it takes, it will get done.
Recall the famous movie line "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!"
Unfortunately, it has reached that point.
OldLion, you are a blessing on this program, thank you! Regretfully, I do not believe that I will be asked to be a part of a the FBC or any athletic oversight committee any time soon, although I would relish in the opportunity. After speaking with Des Werthman and Matt Sodl the other day on an extended conference call, I believe that we all have to accept the fact that Coach Mangurian will be coming back for another year. President Bollinger, the Trustees, the Administration and the FBC fully support this endorsement. We can all agree to disagree if that is right, or wrong, but we must put our faith in the senior level managers who oversee this program and move on… I know that these overseers care deeply that we succeed. I was advised to let the process play out and if changes are merited next year, they will be reviewed and addressed accordingly. One thing that is abundantly clear is that personal attacks on either side of this conversation only build a bigger divide and ultimately hurt the program. Furthermore, personal attacks against Jake, and attempts to discredit him (and invalidate his point of view) are equally troublesome. Jake cares deeply about the program and the kids in it. My recommendation, for what it’s worth, is to now focus on recruiting, highlight some positive stories about current players and football alums, and then move forward…
Greg Abbruzzese CC ‘91
gabbruzzese@converse.com
Greg,
Great read! Do you think that someone like you or Rich F could sit down with DM and bury the hatchet?
Trust but Verify
Rich,
Thank you!
Thomas Jefferson wanna be.
We, as former athletes and alums, remain committed to bettering the athletic experience and athletic teams fielded by our University. I suggest anybody that is interested contact Rich F.
Hey Greg,
Remember your playing days well. Regret the passing of your running mate Solompn Johnson.
I appreciate your thoughts about how to approach
next season. But what is your take on this HC? If
Coach M is as clueless as so many believe, I don't want to even go near next season. What is the point of recruiting and going through all the motions if the HC is going to ruin the entire effort.
I'm not saying he will but I don't know. All I have to go by is his terrible first season.
Any thoughts? Do the Admin people responsible for the program indicate they think Coach M just got off on the wrong foot and can recover, or do they just not want to acknowledge a disaster so quickly?
Sorry guys but I haven't accepted defeat for 60 years as a couple of people said above. And neither have most of you. What happened is that we found each other here thanks to Jake who motivated a concerted demand for change. I was responding to someone who said we can't expect to get good players until we have a good track record in W-L for five to ten years. I asked, and still ask, how do you win for 10 years without those good players that you need to win for a decade? How do you get that success rolling since you say we don't have the players?
Yet, most of you say we do have good players right now. Then it must be the coaching. How come other new Ivy coaches turned things around in their second year but Mangurian went 0-10?
The consensus seems to be--Wait and see what he does next year. If it's a horror again, he'll be replaced. WHO SAYS SO? Bollinger hasn't. What if they keep him just the same? It wouldn't surprise me. And if they fire him, who chooses his replacement? The same incompetents who chose him?
These questions and problems are what Rich Forzani's committee is working on and that work has to be done, to get a new process in place of the Nathan's Hot Dog Committee, or this same mess will continue another 60 years. I don't believe a word Bollinger and Murphy say. We need more than their ludicrous letters of support for Mangurian. Everyone who claims to be so concerned should join Rich's committee. It's open to everyone--players, alums, parents, friends. We need numbers to press the stuffed shirts, instead of just taking potshots at each other here.
The administration is saying that there is not enough talented kids and that has been the problem.
Show me the point of having an Ivy football program if the leaders of that program do not understand the concept of overachieving. Is the point of higher education to prove how smart you are and can succeed? Or is it to achieve what you did not know you were capable of achieving? Don't say both because that would not be true.
Post a Comment