The Case for Firing Charlie Weis
For the counterpoint, the case for keeping Charlie Weis.
It looks like I’m one of the few on this site that wants to see Weis go, so I’ll add my counterpoint to CW’s post below. As a disclaimer, I want Weis to be let go and voted for the second option, but obviously I did not want us to get rid of Charlie and bring back Tyrone Willingham. There were options out there and I wonder how deep we got in the two days there were any doubts over Weis’ future at Notre Dame. Here are my reasons for firing Weis:
1) We are a bad football team and have been for the past two seasons. Last year we were absolutely dreadful and this year we might have erased the “absolutely” part. Some of you might call that progress. The trend line is pointing south and we are seeing not only our players regress in some instances, but our coaching staff as well. I don’t feel the need to support that statement with stats or rankings, we all know that are poor and it will only further my argument. I feel confident after watching the past two seasons that we are not a well coached team.
2) Weis was hired for his offense. And yet I would venture to say that our defense is our strength and Corwin Brown is doing much more with less talent than Charlie and the offensive staff is doing on the other side of the ball. Why is Weis still employable? Is it for his offensive prowess? I hope not. How about his head coaching ability? I would hope not. He would be a fantastic recruiting coordinator.
3) Let’s assume for the moment that Notre Dame hires a few new assistants, something that most fans thinks should be done now that Weis is getting a second chance (and for the record, I do think we’ll see a few coaching changes. Before the
4) It seems that we have different expectations for different coaches. Others might interpret this as being racist and I highly doubt that is the actual case, but there should be concern over how we treated the previous coach when the current one is doing just as poorly, if not more poorly on the field. I realize recruiting is a critical part of college football, but if you don’t develop it or turn it into wins, it means nothing. I would also argue that there have been several recruiting failures in Weis’ tenure. His first full class is not as great as we once thought and there have been some holes in the recruiting classes. We will once again be struggling for bodies on the defensive line if we only sign the one DL commit we have so far and are still struggling to find answers at other positions (left tackle, kicker).
5) A number of Tier 1 and Tier 2 coaches would be much better than Charlie Weis. Heck, I’d even think about bringing back Bob Davie.
In the end, there are several more arguments we could add (feel free to comment on some more). I really hope I am wrong with Weis and he wins a National Championship. I’ll be the first to eat some delicious crow. I also hope that Jack Swarbrick, Notre Dame’s new athletic director, clearly defined his expectations for Charlie Weis’ fifth season which include a BCS berth in 2009 and/or a top 10 finish. This is Year 5, my friends, and as Charlie puts it, there are “no excuses”.
0 recs |
7 comments
|
Comments
I hope the person who voted for the final option owns a business of some sort, as I’d like to start working for them as soon as possible.
http://www.rakesofmallow.com
by CW on Dec 4, 2008 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think that a strong argument could be made for canning Weis but I don’t think you made it.
1.The only player that has regressed, maybe, is Clausen. And that is a direct result of the pathetic play of the offensive line, which means ND has no running game, which has allowed defenses to play multiple db’s including 2 deep safeties. Clausen has played right into opponents hands by forcing the issue and trying to make big plays when they aren’t there to be made. I think this is part of a normal progression with young QBs that wouldn’t be anywhere near as bad if ND could run the ball with any consistency. Other positions, including receiver, tight end, corner, safety, linebacker, even place kicking are improving. Offensive line, not improving.
2.Weis is the head coach, which means he gets both the blame and the credit for everything that happens. He should get credit for hiring good defensive coaches and getting out of their way. He should get credit for recruiting players with great potential. He gets the blame for the offense. By all accounts the players like and respect him—he should get credit for that also. He also runs a good program and his players graduate at a very high rate.
3.I agree, Weis should have canned Latina long ago, it was a big mistake not to do so. But you can’t argue that he made a mistake by not firing Latina sooner, and then turn around and criticize him for throwing his assistants under the bus. Either the assistants are part of the problem or they aren’t. I believe they are, and that changes will help.
4. Weis has been much better in several areas, most notably recruiting, than Willingham. Of course people will accuse ND of a double standard, but those people have already called ND racist so who cares, you’ll never please them. If it was a mistake to can Willingham, as these folks argue, should ND then repeat the mistake, or worse fire someone even less worthy of being fired, simply on the grounds of consistency? That’s illogical to say the least.
5. I’ll assume you were joking about Bob Davie. The only thing I will say about potential replacements is that they aren’t as easy to find as some seem to think. There is a very small pool of highly accomplished, low risk, college head coaches and most of them have no interest in leaving their current positions.
by San Diego Irish on Dec 4, 2008 12:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i agree with almost everything
except:
the only player that has regressed, maybe, is Clausen.
what about Robert Hughes? Duval Kamara? Sure there aren’t many players that have regressed, but there are plenty that haven’t improved at all. Sam Young is a perfect example – a five-star recruit that is mediocre at best as a tackle. James Aldridge is another five-star that never lived up to the billing.
here is the main difference between the two worst years under Ty (2003-04) and Charlie (2007-08): Willingham’s teams were inconsistent, Weis’ teams were just plain bad. At least Ty’s ‘04 team beat top-ten Michigan and Tennessee teams. Charlie’s teams the past two years haven’t even come close against teams of that caliber. outside of BYU in the opener in ‘04 (who finished 7-5) there weren’t any bad losses that came close to Navy or Syracuse. both coaches took blowout losses against Michigan (‘03, ’07) and SC (’03, ’04, ’07, ’08).
i have been a huge Weis supporter all through this tough stretch, but i fell off the bandwagon after the Syracuse loss. the kids were under-prepared and played with no fire against a pathetic excuse for a football team with a lame-duck head coach. that embarrassment alone should’ve cost him his job.
by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Dec 5, 2008 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SBaker, I agree, the lack of wins over ranked opponents is very troubling and probably the strongest indictment of Weis’ tenure. Even Faust and Davie occasionally knocked off a good team. But even with ND’s recent troubles, I still think that we are in a better position offensively now then we ever were under Davie or Willingham. Willingham in particular won a bunch of games (especially in his first season) with good defense. Think about the QB situation pre-Weis—those LoVecchio, Holiday, early Brady Quinn years were pretty pathetic. I remember feeling completely hopeless that ND could score any points in those years. As bad as ND was at times this year, it could move the ball and score points against everyone except USC. Even against BC ND moved the ball, but got killed by the interceptions.
As far as Hughes goes, I don’t think he regressed. He had good games last year against Duke and Stanford who were admittedly horrible. This year, Weis seemed less inclined to give Hughes the majority of carries and seemed to favor Allen, and maybe even Aldridge. I’m not sure why, maybe they improved? It’s tough to say with such consistently bad run blocking because I don’t think any running back could look good when they are getting drilled two yards behind the line of scrimmage.
Kamara had a rough start, but I think more than anything else he got passed up by Floyd and Tate.
I haven’t looked at the stats, but it seems like he rarely had the ball thrown in his direction. He didn’t get many chances to show what he could do after the SDSU game went so poorly for him.
Sam Young—agreed. Aldridge I think looked really good at times. But again, I don’t think you can honestly evaluate a running back with so few holes to run through.
I agree about the preparedness of the team at times including Syracuse. But the players need to take some responsibility for playing flat.
by San Diego Irish on Dec 5, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
all good points
i’m not sure if Charlie is the right guy for this job, but in retrospect, i’m kinda glad that we all don’t have to go through a 3rd head coaching search (3 1/2 if you count O’Leary i guess…) in 8 years.
by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Dec 5, 2008 7:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Weis
ND has`t seen talent like this in over 10 years. The offense could be the best in the country if the line grew a pair, Clausen stopped throwing stupid ass picks, the running backs hit the hole like they were`t scared, and Weis stopped being so damn predictable with his play calls.
I am one of the few that believes Weis has`t become a crappy offensive coach out of nowhere. Clausen needs more grooming, but i think he will turn out to be something special. His problem sure is`t throwing the ball. It`s decision making.
Bottom line, blue chip players are coming to ND because of Charlie Weis. You could fire him and hope for the best but the talent will stop coming, which puts us back at square one. At least if he stays he has a chance to finish grooming his talent which is mostly fresh and soph.
I think Weis play calling is complete crap, but maybe it just looks that way because of lack of experienced play makers. If everyone gets on the same page, this could look like the team that showed flashes of explosiveness this year.
by SteelerDomination on Dec 5, 2008 2:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Steeler—agree with all your points. I know it sounds optimistic, but I think Jimmy is right when he says this team is not far from being very good. I don’t know if Weis will get them there, but I think they aren’t as far away as it seems at times. Better run blocking alone will win them 2 or 3 more games next year.
by San Diego Irish on Dec 5, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 








