ADVERTISEMENT

Congratulations to JON

The tweak worked and our D looked really good. Was Hankwitz back?

Jon was awful prior to today but really had a good D today.
Ill give him full credit and hope to see some more.
This is like praising a 10-year-old who’s been having accidents at school. A week goes by with no accidents, and that’s great. But it doesn’t make the kid some sort of potty wizard
 
  • Like
Reactions: phatcat
Our OL had some nice protection as well, and Hillinski really has precision passes and touch and a strong arm given time. Claire looks the first team part.
I wouldnt be surprised if we get on a 3 game run.
 
Give credit where credit is due. The defense played a good game today, credit to JON and the players. This is a confidence builder and is something to build on.
Is it Fitz or JON? Give credit either way, but don't burden Fitz with also having to be the defensive coach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeek55
Is it Fitz or JON? Give credit either way, but don't burden Fitz with also having to be the defensive coach.
Fitz has to do what he has to do to make the team work. I'd imagine Fitz was involved at some level, but regardless he's responsible as HC.

If he has to help ensure the defense is playing at this level at least in the short run, it's what's going to happen.

Whatever the formula was for producing today's results, we need that going forward if we're going to go bowling or more.
 
Fitz has to do what he has to do to make the team work. I'd imagine Fitz was involved at some level, but regardless he's responsible as HC.

If he has to help ensure the defense is playing at this level at least in the short run, it's what's going to happen.

Whatever the formula was for producing today's results, we need that going forward if we're going to go bowling or more.
Based on the way the team played today, they could go bowling, or more. However, they sure got a lot of yards on penalties today. Likely not going to get this going forward. UNLESS, the penalties were because our offensive play was such that we could not be stopped without penalties.
 
Really good!
From the comments Fitz made to Dave Eanet in the pregame interview today it sounds like he got personally and extensively involved in the defense planning and coaching over the last two weeks.

More involved than he might have been if there had been better defensive performance up to now. And probably a lot more than he ever got involved with Hank.

I got the impression that he essentially coached the coach and pulled JON in a much shorted leash.
 
Last edited:
The tweak worked and our D looked really good. Was Hankwitz back?

Jon was awful prior to today but really had a good D today.
Ill give him full credit and hope to see some more.

Congratulations for what? For going back to the basic cover 4 that we played all of last year?
For mucking up our first 5 games by fixing something that wasn't broke with some bull shit 4-2-5 scheme that has never worked anywhere else he's been?

Even you had mentioned that the players stepped up and approached Fitz to call an end to the BS, and obviously Fitz intervened.

It seems obvious to me that had it been up to JON, we would not have changed back to the scheme that won all those games for us under Hank, and that we'd still be playing some crazy scheme giving 500 yards and a truckload of points to the opponent.

Whatever happened, I'm glad it did, as the difference was night and day, and we go with it the rest of the way and never ever again see that BS D that was on the field for the first 5 games of the season.
 
Congratulations for what? For going back to the basic cover 4 that we played all of last year?
For mucking up our first 5 games by fixing something that wasn't broke with some bull shit 4-2-5 scheme that has never worked anywhere else he's been?

Even you had mentioned that the players stepped up and approached Fitz to call an end to the BS, and obviously Fitz intervened.

It seems obvious to me that had it been up to JON, we would not have changed back to the scheme that won all those games for us under Hank, and that we'd still be playing some crazy scheme giving 500 yards and a truckload of points to the opponent.

Whatever happened, I'm glad it did, as the difference was night and day, and we go with it the rest of the way and never ever again see that BS D that was on the field for the first 5 games of the season.
I'm still in this camp. He got around to doing what Ryan Day did after a single loss. Perhaps I'm wrong and really IDC along as we don't suck. RU is not UM but probably as good as Duke. We played well against a mediocre opponent, which we didn't do against Duke or Nebraska (fka best 4 loss team in country , nka best 5 Los team)
 
The tweak worked and our D looked really good. Was Hankwitz back?

Jon was awful prior to today but really had a good D today.
Ill give him full credit and hope to see some more.
Congratulations? Whoa.

Let’s be honest, JON did not decide to go back to his predecessor’s playbook. He was ‘encouraged’ to do so. And the immediate success of those schemes shown yesterday eliminates a lot of the arguments that our dramatic defensive regression to date was due to the lack of athleticism of our players. (Which I never understood as 8 of those current players started last year at some point.)

Those in the know, how likely is it then that JON was able to call a defensive game on his own that looked an awful lot like our old defense, without significant input from those who previously ran that D as the HC or an assistant? If that significant input was needed, then the next question becomes, “If he didn’t design the D we saw yesterday, and he didn’t entirely call the D we saw yesterday, why would he be kept here?” especially as one of the top 2 highest paid assistants on the staff.

Happy as I am with the win and to see our defense yesterday which felt like a visit from an old friend, yesterday’s performance may have been the greatest admonishment of JON and his ideas and abilities that we’ve seen all year.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations for what? For going back to the basic cover 4 that we played all of last year?
For mucking up our first 5 games by fixing something that wasn't broke with some bull shit 4-2-5 scheme that has never worked anywhere else he's been?

Even you had mentioned that the players stepped up and approached Fitz to call an end to the BS, and obviously Fitz intervened.

It seems obvious to me that had it been up to JON, we would not have changed back to the scheme that won all those games for us under Hank, and that we'd still be playing some crazy scheme giving 500 yards and a truckload of points to the opponent.

Whatever happened, I'm glad it did, as the difference was night and day, and we go with it the rest of the way and never ever again see that BS D that was on the field for the first 5 games of the season.
The players met with Fitz and he promised to get new scheme as reported by parent on FB.
All I know is JON listened and didnt insist on his bs. Its beautiful when coaches listen to the players and things progress. 5 games of JON going with his 425 cost us alot but that exleriment unto madness is over and Fitz put his seniors over JON
 
The players met with Fitz and he promised to get new scheme as reported by parent on FB.
All I know is JON listened and didnt insist on his bs. Its beautiful when coaches listen to the players and things progress. 5 games of JON going with his 425 cost us alot but that exleriment unto madness is over and Fitz put his seniors over JON
And if anyone knows experiments into madness, it would be you. And that is not exactly a compliment to JON.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: phatcat
From the comments Fitz made to Dave Eanet in the pregame interview today it sounds like he got personally and extensively involved in the defense planning and coaching over the last two weeks.

More involved than he might have been if there had been better defensive performance up to now. And probably a lot more than he ever got involved with Hank.

I got the impression that he essentially coached the coach and pulled JON in a much shorted leash.
Thank you for providing the report from Mr. Wildcat. My ignorant eyes watch the ball too much to know what happened yesterday, but I am smart enough to notice guys getting to the ball more quickly.

Rutgers! I know! But also, Nebraska.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for providing the report from Mr. Wildcat. My ignorant eyes watch the ball to much to know what happened yesterday, but I am smart enough to notice guys getting to the ball more quickly.

Rutgers! I know! But also, Nebraska.
The first five games were just a ploy to catch the rest of the teams on our schedule off guard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NUCat320
The first five games were just a ploy to catch the rest of the teams on our schedule off guard.
Sort of like how we used to give up an early score to get them lulled to sleep then come back. This year we tried giving up 3-4 scores then come back. Didn't work
 
Hey, the cats won! Not sure who is more miserable of a person, you or willycat.

Enjoy the win SPC.

Go Cats!
Ah, the bliss of madness. Who is not enjoying the win? And that Fitz is getting to the root of the defensive problem.
 
The win is great, but I think for many of us, it's more of a relief than something to celebrate. Relief as in NU isn't likely to join ESPN's Bottom 10 in the near future.

The season as a whole remains a disaster. Duke looked like Alabama against the NU defense, but just lost 48-0 to Virginia. ESPN highlighted Virginia's defensive problems: "Earlier in the season, after opening with two impressive wins, the Cavaliers defense was maligned after allowing 699 yards in a 59-39 loss to North Carolina and then losing 37-17 at home against No. 16 Wake Forest." But not against Duke, which even gave up 33 points to Kansas.

Maybe the bye week changes will make a huge difference for the rest of the season. But the level of incompetence the defense showed over its first three P5 games is still mindblowing.
 
All the more reason Fitz should have promoted one of them to DC instead of bringing in an outsider with very questionable credentials to begin with.
We don't get to make those decisions. Fitz is the CEO of the operation and "in Fitz I trust." There are components of the 42☆ that Fitz wanted installed to make us more diverse and more aggressive on D. It was always intended to be a blend of old and new. I'm as unhappy about MSU, DUKE, & UNL as anybody, but as I have said the players and coaches would figure it out and they did. Now get better fast. Tough games coming up.
 
We don't get to make those decisions. Fitz is the CEO of the operation and "in Fitz I trust." There are components of the 42☆ that Fitz wanted installed to make us more diverse and more aggressive on D. It was always intended to be a blend of old and new. I'm as unhappy about MSU, DUKE, & UNL as anybody, but as I have said the players and coaches would figure it out and they did. Now get better fast. Tough games coming up
I hope that you are right and that JON is the man for the job. However, the disastrous start and the fact that Fitz had to finally get personally involved in order to straighten things out is still a matter of concern.
 
I hope that you are right and that JON is the man for the job. However, the disastrous start and the fact that Fitz had to finally get personally involved in order to straighten things out is still a matter of concern.
Fitz was not going to figure anything out. A group of players finally stood up after being thoroughly embarrassed on the field thru JONs madness. Fitz heard them out and the handwriting was on the wall,ie., either support the players and internal problems go away, or support JON and his madness and a handful of players would most likely exit.
Fitz was smart and agreed to listen to the players.thats the narrative that was reported prior to the new schemes.
 
I hope that you are right and that JON is the man for the job. However, the disastrous start and the fact that Fitz had to finally get personally involved in order to straighten things out is still a matter of concern.
Yeah, it looks like a Ryan Day/Kerry Coombs situation to me, but, you know Fitz. He'll take that to his grave. My memory sucks, but wasn't Jerry Brown a failure at DC, then was promoted to assistant head coach and DB coach and basically started the Sky Team, so to speak? I just remember him being the subject of heavy criticism, and then remember him dancing in the locker room with the kids after a big win.
 
Yeah, it looks like a Ryan Day/Kerry Coombs situation to me, but, you know Fitz. He'll take that to his grave. My memory sucks, but wasn't Jerry Brown a failure at DC, then was promoted to assistant head coach and DB coach and basically started the Sky Team, so to speak? I just remember him being the subject of heavy criticism, and then remember him dancing in the locker room with the kids after a big win.
Brown ended up with a good overall defensive coordinator in Hankwitz and started getting more talented players during his last few seasons as a DB coach. Amazing how good players can make a coach look good.
 
Fitz was not going to figure anything out. A group of players finally stood up after being thoroughly embarrassed on the field thru JONs madness. Fitz heard them out and the handwriting was on the wall,ie., either support the players and internal problems go away, or support JON and his madness and a handful of players would most likely exit.
Fitz was smart and agreed to listen to the players.thats the narrative that was reported prior to the new schemes.
Don't you think Fitz was embarrassed about the Nebraska game, too? I'm sure he heard the players out, but I doubt that's the only reason we saw changes on D against Rutgers.
 
This is like praising a 10-year-old who’s been having accidents at school. A week goes by with no accidents, and that’s great. But it doesn’t make the kid some sort of potty wizard
So you are still learning?
 
Based on the way the team played today, they could go bowling, or more. However, they sure got a lot of yards on penalties today. Likely not going to get this going forward. UNLESS, the penalties were because our offensive play was such that we could not be stopped without penalties.
There was a PI called that was questionable but there were also at least a couple that were glaring and not called. O is still a work in progress. Right side of OL still weak and we had plenty of penatlies called on us as well
 
You are choosing Turk's opinion? Where did I say I did not enjoy the win? Keep in mind he came down hard on JON when the defense was tanking. Suddenly, defense (seemingly) okay, JON no problem? I don't know where the problem has been, but most signs point to coaching. At least someone is addressing this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaliforniaCat
You are choosing Turk's opinion? Where did I say I did not enjoy the win? Keep in mind he came down hard on JON when the defense was tanking. Suddenly, defense (seemingly) okay, JON no problem? I don't know where the problem has been, but most signs point to coaching. At least someone is addressing this.
Of course i came down hard on jon. Why wouldnt anyone. Even the players had it with his pop warner setup. Thankfully some players stopped the madness since Fitz didnt have the guts. Without the meeting, Fitz would have not changed a thing and rutgers would have scored 40.
Fitz would have lost his program and many players would have bailed most likely.
But fitz learned from his error and instructed jon to incorporate the needed changes. Jon didnt sweat it. So give credit where credit is due and stop being so combative after a victory.
 
Without the meeting, Fitz would have not changed a thing and rutgers would have scored 40.
Fitz would have lost his program and many players would have bailed most likely.
But fitz learned from his error and instructed jon to incorporate the needed changes. Jon didnt sweat it. So give credit where credit is due and stop being so combative after a victory.
There's no way you could know any of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CaliforniaCat
There's no way you could know any of this.
From what we've observed about Fitz, Turk's observation is a reasonable hypothesis, although perhaps a bit extreme. These are my opinions: 1) Fitz is stubborn. If you disagree, you can ignore the rest of the post. 2) He hired JON because he knows and trusts him, despite his checkered past performance. 3) Our defense against P5 opponents, two of which are terrible teams, was the arguably the worst Fitz's tenure. 4) Some of the poor performance can be attributed to new people, some can be attributed to the scheme being new, and, IMHO, a large portion can be attributed to casual observation that the new scheme just hasn't worked - here or anywhere - prior to this. 5) There was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the pitchfork populace (us and others like us - the handful of NU fans that actually give a sh1te). 6) Fitz doubles down, as he always does, with 'my emails is hashtag i don't care' 7) some player representatives approach him with their concerns, and unlike us weirdos, he actually listens to them 8) Fitz does a Ryan Day/Kerry Coombs thing, under the radar and 4 weeks late.

No way, in my mind, does JON suddenly abandon all he, ahem, "knows" and re-install his predecessor's defense during a bye week. Just my opinion, everybody's got one, as they say. I don't need to be "right" about this, I just want the defense to tackle people. I don't care if Clucko the Chicken is the DC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EvanstonCat
Of course i came down hard on jon. Why wouldnt anyone. Even the players had it with his pop warner setup. Thankfully some players stopped the madness since Fitz didnt have the guts. Without the meeting, Fitz would have not changed a thing and rutgers would have scored 40.
Fitz would have lost his program and many players would have bailed most likely.
But fitz learned from his error and instructed jon to incorporate the needed changes. Jon didnt sweat it. So give credit where credit is due and stop being so combative after a victory.
So you're combative only after a loss? History (Oh, that's right history only exists to the degree you say it does) says otherwise. Look back to the beginning of time, say 1995, at your own history of combativeness, after wins.
 
From what we've observed about Fitz, Turk's observation is a reasonable hypothesis, although perhaps a bit extreme. These are my opinions: 1) Fitz is stubborn. If you disagree, you can ignore the rest of the post. 2) He hired JON because he knows and trusts him, despite his checkered past performance. 3) Our defense against P5 opponents, two of which are terrible teams, was the arguably the worst Fitz's tenure. 4) Some of the poor performance can be attributed to new people, some can be attributed to the scheme being new, and, IMHO, a large portion can be attributed to casual observation that the new scheme just hasn't worked - here or anywhere - prior to this. 5) There was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the pitchfork populace (us and others like us - the handful of NU fans that actually give a sh1te). 6) Fitz doubles down, as he always does, with 'my emails is hashtag i don't care' 7) some player representatives approach him with their concerns, and unlike us weirdos, he actually listens to them 8) Fitz does a Ryan Day/Kerry Coombs thing, under the radar and 4 weeks late.

No way, in my mind, does JON suddenly abandon all he, ahem, "knows" and re-install his predecessor's defense during a bye week. Just my opinion, everybody's got one, as they say. I don't need to be "right" about this, I just want the defense to tackle people. I don't care if Clucko the Chicken is the DC.

Seems like the obvious answer.

Occam's razor.
 
So you're combative only after a loss? History (Oh, that's right history only exists to the degree you say it does) says otherwise. Look back to the beginning of time, say 1995, at your own history of combativeness, after wins.
We won. Enjoy the win.

Go cats!
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT