WildcatReport - Ten thoughts on Tuesday's firings
Reactions to the dismissals of assistant football coaches Jim O'Neil, Marty Long and Dennis Springer.
northwestern.rivals.com
Ten thoughts on Tuesday's firings
- Thread starter lou v
- Start date
northwestern.rivals.com
An extremely thoughtful and well-written article. Appreciate the insight and perspective.
WildcatReport - Ten thoughts on Tuesday's firings
Reactions to the dismissals of assistant football coaches Jim O'Neil, Marty Long and Dennis Springer.
The "75% new" comment is just mind-blowing. There was another comment he made when he was hired about doing things differently "because I gotta be me". This isn't art class, JON. It's closer to military engineering. Creativity is valuable only if it works under fire on Saturday.
The medical profession has a slogan ... "primum non nocere"; "first [to] do no harm". JON's tenure was an object lesson in failing to abide by that.
The medical profession has a slogan ... "primum non nocere"; "first [to] do no harm". JON's tenure was an object lesson in failing to abide by that.
Well said as always Lou.
As @kaTNap points out, the "75% new" thing was absurd.
JON should've never said that or done that; when you inherit a top-flight defense that's been solid for 10+ years, there's no reason to try to change course. You're inheriting a smoothly running machine. You're on 3rd base, just don't try to steal home and you'll probably be okay.
That's especially true when you've been a DC for 3 seasons in the NFL and all 3 seasons were ranked near the bottom of the NFL. Maybe adopt the playbook that works instead of trying to force your playbook that didn't work at the NFL level.
As far as Bajakian goes, while I'm a bit surprised he wasn't fired; it seems clear that he's on the hot seat and has to produce in 2023.
That's the silver lining as far as offense goes; the offense has to be much better in 2023 or he's gone. He knows that. And I'll still maintain that I have higher hopes for Bajakian turning around the offense than I had for JON turning around the defense. So if Fitz was only going to change one coordinator, this was the move he had to make.
As @kaTNap points out, the "75% new" thing was absurd.
JON should've never said that or done that; when you inherit a top-flight defense that's been solid for 10+ years, there's no reason to try to change course. You're inheriting a smoothly running machine. You're on 3rd base, just don't try to steal home and you'll probably be okay.
That's especially true when you've been a DC for 3 seasons in the NFL and all 3 seasons were ranked near the bottom of the NFL. Maybe adopt the playbook that works instead of trying to force your playbook that didn't work at the NFL level.
As far as Bajakian goes, while I'm a bit surprised he wasn't fired; it seems clear that he's on the hot seat and has to produce in 2023.
That's the silver lining as far as offense goes; the offense has to be much better in 2023 or he's gone. He knows that. And I'll still maintain that I have higher hopes for Bajakian turning around the offense than I had for JON turning around the defense. So if Fitz was only going to change one coordinator, this was the move he had to make.
< At some point, I’d like to get a chance to ask Fitz about his reasons for keeping Bajakian. >
JON syndrome, known only to Pat Fitzgerald, wherein you observe screaming coaching failure and decide to extend it for another year or two.
That, plain old chicken-%$#@ and lack of management skills.
JON syndrome, known only to Pat Fitzgerald, wherein you observe screaming coaching failure and decide to extend it for another year or two.
That, plain old chicken-%$#@ and lack of management skills.
Admittedly, I'm pathetic when it comes to really thinking through and understanding schemes and strategy on the field. But is it really that uncommon for a new coordinator to come in and implement a whole new plan, even if it means "rebuilding years" while they bring in "the right personnel?" I'm using quotes liberally because I feel like I've heard these explanations for years by coaches in transition, and from talking heads on tv.
I just want to acknowledge that Fitz sanctioned whatever JON wanted to bring in here, and may himself have been the primary instigator...so it may have been a case where no one in the room was aware enough to point out the obvious - it ain't broke.
Since everyone is constantly speculating about what’s going on in Pat Fitzgerald‘s head, I guess I’ll throw in my baseless speculation too.
To understand the motivation for the scheme change on defense, which I agree was very much something Pat Fitzgerald desired, you have to get into the mindset of a coach who had just come up a little bit short in the Big Ten title game.
A bend but don’t break defense was successful for the Cats for a number of seasons, but not at a championship level. Something more aggressive and adaptable was called for, to finally get past OSU.
Enter JON.
I don’t blame JON for much of this. He seems like a decent guy who got talked into all of this by Fitz. I suspect he will quickly find a home back in the NFL.
It was unfair to many people, not least him, to keep him on for a second year. He should have been let go after last season.
I understand why Fitz didn’t want to do that. A single season is generally not enough evidence upon which to base such a decision.
In this case, however, it was evident to everyone that the call had to be made.
Much thumb pointing is called for from the HC’s podium. This is entirely his self created problem.
To understand the motivation for the scheme change on defense, which I agree was very much something Pat Fitzgerald desired, you have to get into the mindset of a coach who had just come up a little bit short in the Big Ten title game.
A bend but don’t break defense was successful for the Cats for a number of seasons, but not at a championship level. Something more aggressive and adaptable was called for, to finally get past OSU.
Enter JON.
I don’t blame JON for much of this. He seems like a decent guy who got talked into all of this by Fitz. I suspect he will quickly find a home back in the NFL.
It was unfair to many people, not least him, to keep him on for a second year. He should have been let go after last season.
I understand why Fitz didn’t want to do that. A single season is generally not enough evidence upon which to base such a decision.
In this case, however, it was evident to everyone that the call had to be made.
Much thumb pointing is called for from the HC’s podium. This is entirely his self created problem.
Interesting theory, but if true, then Fitz is a bigger idiot than I thought.
We didn't lose to dOSU because of our defense. We lost because we couldn't score. We held dOSU to their lowest output all season in that first half. We would have won had we not had the 93rd ranked offense in the country. If we had a top quartile offense that could put up more points, we would have own that game.
If he wanted to make a move to get over the hump he should have fired Bajakian then and there and brought in someone who could have given us an offense truly complementary to our outstanding defense, instead of taking something that wasn't broken and making our defense a match for our pitiful offense.
Damn, I actually agree with E-Cat on this one. Having a top ten defense under Hank was not the problem, having a poor offense was what held us back against dOSU. That was really the first bad game that Justin Fields had at dOSU. And we couldn't capitalize on it.
Well done, Lou. We appreciate you continuing to challenge the program
That's not entirely true. We lost because we couldn't stop their rushing attack effectively, couldn't maintain possession on offense (to keep their rushing attack on the sidelines), and turned the ball over too many times.
That we were in a position to need to stop their rushing attack is a credit to our defense shutting down Fields and forcing them to turn to a ground game. I'm not sure there's much defensive scheme could do to stop them at that point; it requires more and bigger hosses -- on the DL especially -- than we had. Alternatively, move the ball on offense and keep their RB on the bench.
Like I said, you're mostly right.
The change to a DC whose plan was to implement a "75% new" defensive scheme was most definitely elective.
Just making things up here…
Strategically, it makes no sense that JON would bring in a 75% new (which means all new) defense. Given Fitz’s conservative nature, such a change is out of character.
Our expectation here was that one of the defensive assistants, knowledgeable of Hankwitz’s scheme, would take over. “Will it be Mac or Mc?”
I wonder if Fitz envisioned McPherson, his AHC, being elevated to DC, but wanted JON — who had just been fired from a DBs role, and hadn’t been a coordinator for three seasons — to come back to NU as a DBs coach and naturally excellent recruiter.
But JON, with NFL coordinating experience, wouldn’t agree to that. And meanwhile, Fitz’s preferred experienced college DC candidates wouldn’t go for a situation in which their staff was dictated to them. But JON would, and did.
Just spitballing.
The options were, probably in order:
Bring in a new DC, but dictate his staff (as was fine with Bajakian)
Elevate Mc, augment staff with JON
Bring in JON, dictating his staff
And the third option was the only one where he could find a willing conspirator.
Strategically, it makes no sense that JON would bring in a 75% new (which means all new) defense. Given Fitz’s conservative nature, such a change is out of character.
Our expectation here was that one of the defensive assistants, knowledgeable of Hankwitz’s scheme, would take over. “Will it be Mac or Mc?”
I wonder if Fitz envisioned McPherson, his AHC, being elevated to DC, but wanted JON — who had just been fired from a DBs role, and hadn’t been a coordinator for three seasons — to come back to NU as a DBs coach and naturally excellent recruiter.
But JON, with NFL coordinating experience, wouldn’t agree to that. And meanwhile, Fitz’s preferred experienced college DC candidates wouldn’t go for a situation in which their staff was dictated to them. But JON would, and did.
Just spitballing.
The options were, probably in order:
Bring in a new DC, but dictate his staff (as was fine with Bajakian)
Elevate Mc, augment staff with JON
Bring in JON, dictating his staff
And the third option was the only one where he could find a willing conspirator.
Last edited:
Great article as always, Lou.WildcatReport - Ten thoughts on Tuesday's firings
Reactions to the dismissals of assistant football coaches Jim O'Neil, Marty Long and Dennis Springer.
I appreciated Long and Springer’s service to the program. Seemed like good people and Long, in particular, really did a nice job developing college athletes.
O’Neil’s hire was baffling and one I questioned from the start. I knew of him prior to NU for his short DC stint in Cleveland, but I remembered him for inexplicably shoving a Denver player while on the sidelines as the Raiders DB coach. In my mind, the guy was a very questionable hire from before his defense took their first snap at Ryan Field against Michigan State in 2021. Didn’t seem to jive at all with what NU is about, imho.
O’Neil’s stint at NU was two seasons too long and led me to really question what Fitz was thinking for the first time in quite a while.
Last edited:
Maybe I am communicating poorly today.
I was responding to EC who veered off into a Bajakian tangent.
Replacing Bajakian would have been elective. Replacing the DC was not elective.
But, yes, replacing the DC with someone whose system was (supposedly, though not necessarily in actuality) wildly different from a Hankwitz defense was decidedly elective.
I simply happen to think that the systemic replacement would not have occurred had it not been exactly what Fitz wanted. That is really the only point I’ve been trying to make in this thread.
Hank’s retirement was a time for Fitz to look ‘years ahead’ at the direction football was headed, and maybe he thought JON’s approach would give the best matchup/recruiting/whatever advantages the program needed.
Last edited:
The best overall reporting on the changes I have read! Thank you Lou!WildcatReport - Ten thoughts on Tuesday's firings
Reactions to the dismissals of assistant football coaches Jim O'Neil, Marty Long and Dennis Springer.
More spitballing because none of this makes sense so just considering all possibilities no matter how ridiculous:
Fitz knew that whoever followed Hank would look bad. So he took a calculated hit to suffer for a couple of years by inserting someone who was doomed to fail. Everyone thought Fitz and JON were buddies but that was the point, in reality Fitz always hated the guy (as we saw from the curt termination announcement where Fitz’s true feelings for JON were reflected) and so he hired him to make him take the blame when the defense inevitably failed to live up to Hank’s lofty standards. And in doing so he was able to sandbag for his true chosen successor to come in to a situation where the bar could not be any lower and success and improvement all but guaranteed. Ruining the career of his hated arch nemesis was just gravy.
Wow, Fitz is actually a genius.
NU was ahead by 10 when Ramsey threw the interception in the endzone. If NU had been ahead by 17 , OSU would have had to continue to throw, which, on that day would have been to NU's advantage
He threw 3 picks though. Giving OSU 3 extra shots is never good. Especially since they had a high octane offense.
Whenever anyone makes a list of 10, I think of Green Grow the Rushes, O (even there are actually 12 verses), and this time it seems particulary relevent to NU Football:
TEN for the (BIG) Ten Commandments
Nine for the Nine Bright Shiners (hope we don't lose any more)
Eight for the April Rainers (the Debbie Downers)
Seven for the Seven Stars in the Sky (O Line)
Six for the Six Proud WALKERS
Five for the Symbols at your Door (Hank defense)
Four for the Gospel Makers (Fitz, OC, DC, Strength)
Three, three the RIVALS
I've got two, Two Lily-White Boys, clothed them all in green O (maybe a serious QB and serviceable back up?)
One is One and all alone, and ever more shall be as so. (It's lonely at the top)
TEN for the (BIG) Ten Commandments
Nine for the Nine Bright Shiners (hope we don't lose any more)
Eight for the April Rainers (the Debbie Downers)
Seven for the Seven Stars in the Sky (O Line)
Six for the Six Proud WALKERS
Five for the Symbols at your Door (Hank defense)
Four for the Gospel Makers (Fitz, OC, DC, Strength)
Three, three the RIVALS
I've got two, Two Lily-White Boys, clothed them all in green O (maybe a serious QB and serviceable back up?)
One is One and all alone, and ever more shall be as so. (It's lonely at the top)
Last edited:
i totally disagree. We lost that game because the defense could not stop the run. What did Serman have? 330 yards? A record breaking performance if I am not mistaken.I was ok with Hank most of the time but he was not the god many think.
Spot on. As Utah provide last night, If you can run the football and stop the run, you will win 9 out of 10 games. We had half of the formula down in that game against OSU but not the other half. Now we have a lot of work to just get back to the point that we were just a couple of years ago.
The point is OSU would probably have abandoned the run down by 17 instead they relied entirely on their running game
Unless we find a quarterback(s) to run an offense that can score (and qb’s that can survive and stay healthy) the program is doomed for more of what we’ve seen the past few seasons. Don’t think 1,2 or 3 win seasons year after year is sustainable. The program seems to be sinking into a deep hole that will be increasingly difficult to reverse.
Latest posts
-
UPDATE: Ta’Quan Roberson was NOT offered by NU- Latest: CoralSpringsCat
-
-
-
