[d4cohn]

Sam Darnold, after the shakiest of starts with a pick-six, is now lighting up the Lions with a 9.2 YPA, 2 TD's, and a 74% completion percentage. Makes me wonder, if Darnold ends up maintaining anything close to this level, how bad Helton must be to have only barely won 1 Rose Bowl (needing biggest comeback in recent Rose Bowl history) and 1 Pac-12 Championship Game (won by 3 points, needed goal-line stand to preserve lead in 4th quarter) with him.

[d4cohn]

Sam Darnold, after the shakiest of starts with a pick-six, is now lighting up the Lions with a 9.2 YPA, 2 TD's, and a 74% completion percentage. Makes me wonder, if Darnold ends up maintaining anything close to this level, how bad Helton must be to have only barely won 1 Rose Bowl (needing biggest comeback in recent Rose Bowl history) and 1 Pac-12 Championship Game (won by 3 points, needed goal-line stand to preserve lead in 4th quarter) with him.

[stupac2]

Sam Darnold, after the shakiest of starts with a pick-six, is now lighting up the Lions with a 9.2 YPA, 2 TD's, and a 74% completion percentage. Makes me wonder, if Darnold ends up maintaining anything close to this level, how bad Helton must be to have only barely won 1 Rose Bowl (needing biggest comeback in recent Rose Bowl history) and 1 Pac-12 Championship Game (won by 3 points, needed goal-line stand to preserve lead in 4th quarter) with him.

I'm guessing that was an outlier performance, the Lions looked completely hapless on both sides of the ball, especially during that 31-point 3rd quarter.

[stupac2]

Sam Darnold, after the shakiest of starts with a pick-six, is now lighting up the Lions with a 9.2 YPA, 2 TD's, and a 74% completion percentage. Makes me wonder, if Darnold ends up maintaining anything close to this level, how bad Helton must be to have only barely won 1 Rose Bowl (needing biggest comeback in recent Rose Bowl history) and 1 Pac-12 Championship Game (won by 3 points, needed goal-line stand to preserve lead in 4th quarter) with him.

I'm guessing that was an outlier performance, the Lions looked completely hapless on both sides of the ball, especially during that 31-point 3rd quarter.

[oldalum]

our friend Wilner at the Merc had an article comparing Helton's record against FBS teams with and without Darnold, and the conclusion was that he didn't win squat without Darnold.

Wilner article

[oldalum]

our friend Wilner at the Merc had an article comparing Helton's record against FBS teams with and without Darnold, and the conclusion was that he didn't win squat without Darnold.

Wilner article

[CTcard]

our friend Wilner at the Merc had an article comparing Helton's record against FBS teams with and without Darnold, and the conclusion was that he didn't win squat without Darnold.

While the overall premise may be true, there isn't much to go on - yet. 

It's a little too cute to start counting merely from the date he was named permanent head coach in 2015, after having already been acting head coach for 7 games already that season. Either none of 2015 counts (because he hadn't molded that team as head coach) or all of his head coached games from 2015 count. And anyway, the case he wants to make might be stronger including more games.

So, without Darnold, 
In the "all of 2015 counts" scenario the record is: 7-7, 5-7 vs Power 5, 24.6 pts/gm vs Power 5. 
In the "none of 2015 counts" scenario the record is: 2-3, 0-3 vs Power 5, 6.3 pts/g vs Power 5. 


I think it is proper to consider lucking into an great QB when evaluating Helton's record, but not to dismiss those games entirely. Broadly speaking I think that Helton looks better than his three immediate predecessors, and probably 6 of the 7 to precede him. Not sure that is strong praise, however.

[CTcard]

our friend Wilner at the Merc had an article comparing Helton's record against FBS teams with and without Darnold, and the conclusion was that he didn't win squat without Darnold.

While the overall premise may be true, there isn't much to go on - yet. 

It's a little too cute to start counting merely from the date he was named permanent head coach in 2015, after having already been acting head coach for 7 games already that season. Either none of 2015 counts (because he hadn't molded that team as head coach) or all of his head coached games from 2015 count. And anyway, the case he wants to make might be stronger including more games.

So, without Darnold, 
In the "all of 2015 counts" scenario the record is: 7-7, 5-7 vs Power 5, 24.6 pts/gm vs Power 5. 
In the "none of 2015 counts" scenario the record is: 2-3, 0-3 vs Power 5, 6.3 pts/g vs Power 5. 


I think it is proper to consider lucking into an great QB when evaluating Helton's record, but not to dismiss those games entirely. Broadly speaking I think that Helton looks better than his three immediate predecessors, and probably 6 of the 7 to precede him. Not sure that is strong praise, however.

[stupac2]

It's worth noting that, prior to the Pac-12 Championship Game, I did an analysis that found that Helton actually performed worse than Sark after replacing him. At the time I loved the hire (from the "it'll be easier to beat them" perspective), and while last year had me questioning whether maybe he had stepped up his game, the multitude of errors last weekend restored my (non) faith in his abilities.

[stupac2]

It's worth noting that, prior to the Pac-12 Championship Game, I did an analysis that found that Helton actually performed worse than Sark after replacing him. At the time I loved the hire (from the "it'll be easier to beat them" perspective), and while last year had me questioning whether maybe he had stepped up his game, the multitude of errors last weekend restored my (non) faith in his abilities.

[CTcard]

..., the multitude of errors last weekend restored my (non) faith in his abilities.

How about, "my faith in his inabilities"?

[CTcard]

..., the multitude of errors last weekend restored my (non) faith in his abilities.

How about, "my faith in his inabilities"?

[washingtonismoney]

I think it's totally appropriate to consider all of 2015 and be skeptical of Helton for that exact reason. While there's time to turn it around, 7-7 is a full season and change by this point. It's kind of weird *not* to have an opinion, though I think it shouldn't be firmly set yet. 

But one reason I think your opinion should be getting pretty solid: it's not just that Helton has only been successful with Darnold, it's that he's failed with a pretty reasonable crew otherwise. It'd be one thing if Helton had one great quarterback and then (for whatever reason) had to work with a bunch of walk-ons and two-stars. Helton's QBs when not playing with Darnold have been: Cody Kessler, a four-star and third-round NFL draft pick; Max Browne, a former top-ranked (literally #1) QB recruit; and JT Daniel, another #1 QB recruit. While the book's still unwritten and songs are yet to be sung on Daniels, the frequent ineptitude displayed by the Trojans despite running out a very accomplished crew of quarterbacks shouldn't be reassuring.

[washingtonismoney]

I think it's totally appropriate to consider all of 2015 and be skeptical of Helton for that exact reason. While there's time to turn it around, 7-7 is a full season and change by this point. It's kind of weird *not* to have an opinion, though I think it shouldn't be firmly set yet. 

But one reason I think your opinion should be getting pretty solid: it's not just that Helton has only been successful with Darnold, it's that he's failed with a pretty reasonable crew otherwise. It'd be one thing if Helton had one great quarterback and then (for whatever reason) had to work with a bunch of walk-ons and two-stars. Helton's QBs when not playing with Darnold have been: Cody Kessler, a four-star and third-round NFL draft pick; Max Browne, a former top-ranked (literally #1) QB recruit; and JT Daniel, another #1 QB recruit. While the book's still unwritten and songs are yet to be sung on Daniels, the frequent ineptitude displayed by the Trojans despite running out a very accomplished crew of quarterbacks shouldn't be reassuring.

[CTcard]

I think it's totally appropriate to consider all of 2015 and be skeptical of Helton for that exact reason. While there's time to turn it around, 7-7 is a full season and change by this point. It's kind of weird *not* to have an opinion, though I think it shouldn't be firmly set yet. 

But one reason I think your opinion should be getting pretty solid: it's not just that Helton has only been successful with Darnold, it's that he's failed with a pretty reasonable crew otherwise. It'd be one thing if Helton had one great quarterback and then (for whatever reason) had to work with a bunch of walk-ons and two-stars. Helton's QBs when not playing with Darnold have been: Cody Kessler, a four-star and third-round NFL draft pick; Max Browne, a former top-ranked (literally #1) QB recruit; and JT Daniel, another #1 QB recruit. While the book's still unwritten and songs are yet to be sung on Daniels, the frequent ineptitude displayed by the Trojans despite running out a very accomplished crew of quarterbacks shouldn't be reassuring.

7-7 is not good for a U$C coach, but there is also a bit of "he wasn't a very good coach in the games where U$C wasn't very good" to that sort of analysis. 
Helton's overall record at U$C is 28-11, which is okay-ish though far from Carroll, Robinson, McKay levels. The games with Darnold mean something. It may be that he has trouble putting together good offenses without a plus-QB, but at $C he's likely to have a plus-QB fairly often. 

And two further points in the "I'm not defending Helton, but like proper arguments" category.
- Not really relevant, but Daniels seemed to be mostly the #3 QB last year, behind the guys who went to Clemson and Georgia. 
- Slightly more relevant, Max Browne is probably leading the competition for worst ever #1 ranked QB. By signing day there was already lots of questioning, and within a week after he arrived on the $C campus I heard reports that he'd never be a starter. 
Of course it may be damaging to Helton's case that Helton did make him a starter for three games

[CTcard]

I think it's totally appropriate to consider all of 2015 and be skeptical of Helton for that exact reason. While there's time to turn it around, 7-7 is a full season and change by this point. It's kind of weird *not* to have an opinion, though I think it shouldn't be firmly set yet. 

But one reason I think your opinion should be getting pretty solid: it's not just that Helton has only been successful with Darnold, it's that he's failed with a pretty reasonable crew otherwise. It'd be one thing if Helton had one great quarterback and then (for whatever reason) had to work with a bunch of walk-ons and two-stars. Helton's QBs when not playing with Darnold have been: Cody Kessler, a four-star and third-round NFL draft pick; Max Browne, a former top-ranked (literally #1) QB recruit; and JT Daniel, another #1 QB recruit. While the book's still unwritten and songs are yet to be sung on Daniels, the frequent ineptitude displayed by the Trojans despite running out a very accomplished crew of quarterbacks shouldn't be reassuring.

7-7 is not good for a U$C coach, but there is also a bit of "he wasn't a very good coach in the games where U$C wasn't very good" to that sort of analysis. 
Helton's overall record at U$C is 28-11, which is okay-ish though far from Carroll, Robinson, McKay levels. The games with Darnold mean something. It may be that he has trouble putting together good offenses without a plus-QB, but at $C he's likely to have a plus-QB fairly often. 

And two further points in the "I'm not defending Helton, but like proper arguments" category.
- Not really relevant, but Daniels seemed to be mostly the #3 QB last year, behind the guys who went to Clemson and Georgia. 
- Slightly more relevant, Max Browne is probably leading the competition for worst ever #1 ranked QB. By signing day there was already lots of questioning, and within a week after he arrived on the $C campus I heard reports that he'd never be a starter. 
Of course it may be damaging to Helton's case that Helton did make him a starter for three games

[washingtonismoney]

...It may be that he has trouble putting together good offenses without a plus-QB, but at $C he's likely to have a plus-QB fairly often. 

And two further points in the "I'm not defending Helton, but like proper arguments" category.
- Not really relevant, but Daniels seemed to be mostly the #3 QB last year, behind the guys who went to Clemson and Georgia. 
- Slightly more relevant, Max Browne is probably leading the competition for worst ever #1 ranked QB. By signing day there was already lots of questioning, and within a week after he arrived on the $C campus I heard reports that he'd never be a starter. 
Of course it may be damaging to Helton's case that Helton did make him a starter for three games

Though of course -- as your argument implicitly recognizes -- it's the degrees that matter. There's "plus" QBs in the sense of "needs Andrew Luck" and "plus" QBs in the sense of "needs Kevin Hogan" and plus in the sense of "needs Wilton Speights." Of course the worse a QB you can conjure a strong overall offensive performance with, the better a coach you likely are. 

The preceding is a pretty noncontroversial argument, and sorry to belabor it. The question is, where on the spectrum does Helton fall? Darnold isn't Luck, of course; only very few in the past couple decades vaguely resemble him. But Darnold was certainly a highly elite QB, as evidenced by both production and draft status. If your offense can only work with Sam Darnold or better, you've got problems. 

The question is, what does Helton's group fall into? Kessler, of course, was a pretty darn solid QB. I would say a bit worse than Kevin Hogan. If your offense is struggling with Kessler that suggests problems to me. Maybe not totally damning problems, but you should be asking questions. Browne was a pretty big bust, as your remark suggests, so in of itself not a brobdingnagian eyebrow-raiser that Helton couldn't make it work with him. 

It's the current crop that raises questions. It's early, of course, but Daniels was the #1 QB...for the '19 class. He was only #3 in context with the '18 class, which he moved up to, but the #1 and #2 guy were considered highly promising as far as these things go. Daniels was a highly, highly regarded QB. It's obviously too early to judge about his ultimate quality (and therefore, indirectly, Helton's acumen as a coach), but I would submit that any inability to produce a good coach would reflect quite badly on Helton. 

Also relevant are the guys Daniels beat out: Matt Fink, the #13 QB (#456 overall) in the class of '16, and Jack Sears, the #4 QB (#104 overall) in the class of '17. Again, neither are slam-dunk recruits precisely, but practice reports (afaik) suggested both were basically not up to Pac-12 snuff. 

It's too early to judge for certain, but to me, the overall gestalt (strong success with an elite QB; decent offense and poor results with a good QB; sputtering results with a collection of good-to-elite recruits) suggests a coach who's in well over his head.

[washingtonismoney]

...It may be that he has trouble putting together good offenses without a plus-QB, but at $C he's likely to have a plus-QB fairly often. 

And two further points in the "I'm not defending Helton, but like proper arguments" category.
- Not really relevant, but Daniels seemed to be mostly the #3 QB last year, behind the guys who went to Clemson and Georgia. 
- Slightly more relevant, Max Browne is probably leading the competition for worst ever #1 ranked QB. By signing day there was already lots of questioning, and within a week after he arrived on the $C campus I heard reports that he'd never be a starter. 
Of course it may be damaging to Helton's case that Helton did make him a starter for three games

Though of course -- as your argument implicitly recognizes -- it's the degrees that matter. There's "plus" QBs in the sense of "needs Andrew Luck" and "plus" QBs in the sense of "needs Kevin Hogan" and plus in the sense of "needs Wilton Speights." Of course the worse a QB you can conjure a strong overall offensive performance with, the better a coach you likely are. 

The preceding is a pretty noncontroversial argument, and sorry to belabor it. The question is, where on the spectrum does Helton fall? Darnold isn't Luck, of course; only very few in the past couple decades vaguely resemble him. But Darnold was certainly a highly elite QB, as evidenced by both production and draft status. If your offense can only work with Sam Darnold or better, you've got problems. 

The question is, what does Helton's group fall into? Kessler, of course, was a pretty darn solid QB. I would say a bit worse than Kevin Hogan. If your offense is struggling with Kessler that suggests problems to me. Maybe not totally damning problems, but you should be asking questions. Browne was a pretty big bust, as your remark suggests, so in of itself not a brobdingnagian eyebrow-raiser that Helton couldn't make it work with him. 

It's the current crop that raises questions. It's early, of course, but Daniels was the #1 QB...for the '19 class. He was only #3 in context with the '18 class, which he moved up to, but the #1 and #2 guy were considered highly promising as far as these things go. Daniels was a highly, highly regarded QB. It's obviously too early to judge about his ultimate quality (and therefore, indirectly, Helton's acumen as a coach), but I would submit that any inability to produce a good coach would reflect quite badly on Helton. 

Also relevant are the guys Daniels beat out: Matt Fink, the #13 QB (#456 overall) in the class of '16, and Jack Sears, the #4 QB (#104 overall) in the class of '17. Again, neither are slam-dunk recruits precisely, but practice reports (afaik) suggested both were basically not up to Pac-12 snuff. 

It's too early to judge for certain, but to me, the overall gestalt (strong success with an elite QB; decent offense and poor results with a good QB; sputtering results with a collection of good-to-elite recruits) suggests a coach who's in well over his head.

[stupac2]

It took me a while, but I found that analysis I did in 2015: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid132745

Basically, while Sark was coach, USC performed 2.3 net yards per play better than average, while Helton's were nearly  exactly average. I think that jibes with him being a replacement level coach. It would be interesting, of course, to extend that to looking at the other non-Darnold games, but I'm not sure I have time for that today.

[stupac2]

It took me a while, but I found that analysis I did in 2015: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid132745

Basically, while Sark was coach, USC performed 2.3 net yards per play better than average, while Helton's were nearly  exactly average. I think that jibes with him being a replacement level coach. It would be interesting, of course, to extend that to looking at the other non-Darnold games, but I'm not sure I have time for that today.

[washingtonismoney]

It took me a while, but I found that analysis I did in 2015: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid132745

Basically, while Sark was coach, USC performed 2.3 net yards per play better than average, while Helton's were nearly  exactly average. I think that jibes with him being a replacement level coach. It would be interesting, of course, to extend that to looking at the other non-Darnold games, but I'm not sure I have time for that today.

Re-reading that thread reminds me of one other bit of information to chew on: Helton's coaching hires. At the time, SC's defensive coordinator was Justin Wilcox; by the time Helton was hired it was widely rumored that he was going to clear house. After a disastrous Pac-12 champ game, Wilcox was one of the scapegoats -- there was an apocryphal story floating around that, after McCaffrey galloped through the SC defense, someone asked "Who was supposed to cover him?" to which Wilcox responded, "I don't know." 

Fast forward a couple years. The defense has hardly been rubble under Helton's replacement DC, Clancy Pendergast, but SC fans aren't exactly thrilled with him, and I don't blame them. Given SC's recruiting you probably expect elite defenses down in LA. Anyway, after being fired, Wilcox immediately surfaced at Wisconsin, where he piloted an absolutely dominant defense. And then as we know he became Head 59er, where he's done a creditable job. I wouldn't be incredibly critical of Helton for the move, since Pendergast hasn't been a disaster, but I would argue it's part of a trend: Helton has a bunch of decisions that, individually, are defensible and less than ideal. Add up enough defensible-but-less-than-ideal decisions and you get a genial, but mediocre, coach.

[washingtonismoney]

It took me a while, but I found that analysis I did in 2015: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthrea...#pid132745

Basically, while Sark was coach, USC performed 2.3 net yards per play better than average, while Helton's were nearly  exactly average. I think that jibes with him being a replacement level coach. It would be interesting, of course, to extend that to looking at the other non-Darnold games, but I'm not sure I have time for that today.

Re-reading that thread reminds me of one other bit of information to chew on: Helton's coaching hires. At the time, SC's defensive coordinator was Justin Wilcox; by the time Helton was hired it was widely rumored that he was going to clear house. After a disastrous Pac-12 champ game, Wilcox was one of the scapegoats -- there was an apocryphal story floating around that, after McCaffrey galloped through the SC defense, someone asked "Who was supposed to cover him?" to which Wilcox responded, "I don't know." 

Fast forward a couple years. The defense has hardly been rubble under Helton's replacement DC, Clancy Pendergast, but SC fans aren't exactly thrilled with him, and I don't blame them. Given SC's recruiting you probably expect elite defenses down in LA. Anyway, after being fired, Wilcox immediately surfaced at Wisconsin, where he piloted an absolutely dominant defense. And then as we know he became Head 59er, where he's done a creditable job. I wouldn't be incredibly critical of Helton for the move, since Pendergast hasn't been a disaster, but I would argue it's part of a trend: Helton has a bunch of decisions that, individually, are defensible and less than ideal. Add up enough defensible-but-less-than-ideal decisions and you get a genial, but mediocre, coach.

[Goose]

When one talks about how an "elite" QB can bail out poor coaching, it is important to look at exactly what skills that QB has. Darnold was an expert at making something out of nothing. USC had elite receivers that seemed to not run good routes, or in many cases, no route at all. It was "street" football. Darnold was real good at that. You may have an elite QB that delivers the ball to a spot on time, but if the receiver isn't reliably going to be there, it won't work. Helton and the staff seem to expect that their supposed "athletic superiority" means that they don't need a game plan, don't need to practice hard, and don't need to actually coach the players. Against UNLV, they were right. Against good teams, not so much. Darnold could overcome all that with his gunslinger approach and decisive throws. Very few QBs, even great ones, can play like that.

[Goose]

When one talks about how an "elite" QB can bail out poor coaching, it is important to look at exactly what skills that QB has. Darnold was an expert at making something out of nothing. USC had elite receivers that seemed to not run good routes, or in many cases, no route at all. It was "street" football. Darnold was real good at that. You may have an elite QB that delivers the ball to a spot on time, but if the receiver isn't reliably going to be there, it won't work. Helton and the staff seem to expect that their supposed "athletic superiority" means that they don't need a game plan, don't need to practice hard, and don't need to actually coach the players. Against UNLV, they were right. Against good teams, not so much. Darnold could overcome all that with his gunslinger approach and decisive throws. Very few QBs, even great ones, can play like that.

[BostonCard]

Had you looked at Stanford in the first few weeks after Luck's graduation you might have come to the conclusion (and some people prematurely did) that Shaw was lucky to have Luck and that Shaw can't run his offense without a once in a generation QB.  Four games out of the first eight with under 300 total yards was concerning, and it wasn't like we didn't have highly recruited QB's on the roster at the time.

Considering that Helton is playing a true freshman who graduated high school a year early, and it was the kids' first college road game, against a top-25 team no less, I think it is fair to wait to see if Daniels develops before we declare him a bust or say that Helton can't coach.  I mean, I hope the kid's a bust (nothing against him, but he is a Trojan QB now), and there may be other signs Helton can't coach, but it seems a bit premature to me.

That being said, Kessler was a third round draft pick; Hogan a fifth round pick.  It seems the NFL* thought Kessler was the better player, and yet Hogan's senior year we went to the Rose Bowl and had one of the best offenses in the country, while Kessler's senior year SC was 8-6 and lost to Hogan and Stanford twice.  I think you can reasonably conclude that Shaw did more with his very good but not elite QB than Helton did with his slightly better but still not elite QB, and though Stanford had McCaffrey, SC had a stable of other blue chip players, and consistently pulled in higher rated recruits.

Long way of saying that although it is still early, I could see how an SC fan might start openly wondering if the contract extension was a good call. 

BC

* In full disclosure, Kessler was drafted by the Browns, who are notoriously bad judges of QB talent, though I do think he was regarded as the better NFL prospect.

[BostonCard]

Had you looked at Stanford in the first few weeks after Luck's graduation you might have come to the conclusion (and some people prematurely did) that Shaw was lucky to have Luck and that Shaw can't run his offense without a once in a generation QB.  Four games out of the first eight with under 300 total yards was concerning, and it wasn't like we didn't have highly recruited QB's on the roster at the time.

Considering that Helton is playing a true freshman who graduated high school a year early, and it was the kids' first college road game, against a top-25 team no less, I think it is fair to wait to see if Daniels develops before we declare him a bust or say that Helton can't coach.  I mean, I hope the kid's a bust (nothing against him, but he is a Trojan QB now), and there may be other signs Helton can't coach, but it seems a bit premature to me.

That being said, Kessler was a third round draft pick; Hogan a fifth round pick.  It seems the NFL* thought Kessler was the better player, and yet Hogan's senior year we went to the Rose Bowl and had one of the best offenses in the country, while Kessler's senior year SC was 8-6 and lost to Hogan and Stanford twice.  I think you can reasonably conclude that Shaw did more with his very good but not elite QB than Helton did with his slightly better but still not elite QB, and though Stanford had McCaffrey, SC had a stable of other blue chip players, and consistently pulled in higher rated recruits.

Long way of saying that although it is still early, I could see how an SC fan might start openly wondering if the contract extension was a good call. 

BC

* In full disclosure, Kessler was drafted by the Browns, who are notoriously bad judges of QB talent, though I do think he was regarded as the better NFL prospect.

[washingtonismoney]

Had you looked at Stanford in the first few  weeks after Luck's graduation you might have come to the conclusion (and some people prematurely did) that Shaw was lucky to have Luck and that Shaw can't run his offense without a once in a generation QB.  Four games out of the first eight with under 300 total yards was concerning, and it wasn't like we didn't have highly recruited QB's on the roster at the time.

Considering that Helton is playing a true freshman who graduated high school a year early, and it was the kids' first college road game, against a top-25 team no less, I think it is fair to wait to see if Daniels develops before we declare him a bust or say that Helton can't coach.  I mean, I hope the kid's a bust (nothing against him, but he is a Trojan QB now), and there may be other signs Helton can't coach, but it seems a bit premature to me.

Sure. As I say, not at all certain yet. I just think, you put together a few things -- it's not just the offense looking bad with Daniels, it's that their other highly-rated QBs weren't better than a true freshman. That's a bit suspicious. Not looking great with Kessler, that's a bit suspicious. Jettisoning Wilcox and seeing him immediately lead a dominant defense in Wisconsin, that's a bit suspicious. Wilcox's replacement only putting together solid defenses, that's also a bit suspicious. Anyway you start adding this stuff up together and start to wonder, as you conclude. I think we're in the same place, just putting the emphasis on different facts differently.

[washingtonismoney]

Had you looked at Stanford in the first few  weeks after Luck's graduation you might have come to the conclusion (and some people prematurely did) that Shaw was lucky to have Luck and that Shaw can't run his offense without a once in a generation QB.  Four games out of the first eight with under 300 total yards was concerning, and it wasn't like we didn't have highly recruited QB's on the roster at the time.

Considering that Helton is playing a true freshman who graduated high school a year early, and it was the kids' first college road game, against a top-25 team no less, I think it is fair to wait to see if Daniels develops before we declare him a bust or say that Helton can't coach.  I mean, I hope the kid's a bust (nothing against him, but he is a Trojan QB now), and there may be other signs Helton can't coach, but it seems a bit premature to me.

Sure. As I say, not at all certain yet. I just think, you put together a few things -- it's not just the offense looking bad with Daniels, it's that their other highly-rated QBs weren't better than a true freshman. That's a bit suspicious. Not looking great with Kessler, that's a bit suspicious. Jettisoning Wilcox and seeing him immediately lead a dominant defense in Wisconsin, that's a bit suspicious. Wilcox's replacement only putting together solid defenses, that's also a bit suspicious. Anyway you start adding this stuff up together and start to wonder, as you conclude. I think we're in the same place, just putting the emphasis on different facts differently.

[cctop]

Had you looked at Stanford in the first few  weeks after Luck's graduation you might have come to the conclusion (and some people prematurely did) that Shaw was lucky to have Luck and that Shaw can't run his offense without a once in a generation QB.

I would say that was a completely correct statement at the time.

Remember all the frustration here about why it would take three years for a QB to learn the Stanford playbook while other schools can start true freshmen at QB?  Remember all those posts tearing out their hair over delay of game penalties?  Obviously the latter isn't completely fixed since we got two in a row against USC, but we're not rushing to the line every play like we were a while back.

I feel like after Luck it took Shaw a few years to make the decision to adapt the offense to the strengths of the players rather than expect the players to fit into the system.  I'm thinking both about what he asks the QB to do and about the power running game.

The counter to my argument is that the team won its first Rose Bowl in 40 years the year after Luck left with redshirt freshman Kevin Hogan at QB.  To that I'd say that we had a great OL along with Stepfan Taylor, that we need to remember how we struggled to move the ball under Nunes the first half of the season, and that Hogan turned out to be an amazing talent himself.  And don't forget Michigan State the next year ... talk about pounding your head against a wall.

[cctop]

Had you looked at Stanford in the first few  weeks after Luck's graduation you might have come to the conclusion (and some people prematurely did) that Shaw was lucky to have Luck and that Shaw can't run his offense without a once in a generation QB.

I would say that was a completely correct statement at the time.

Remember all the frustration here about why it would take three years for a QB to learn the Stanford playbook while other schools can start true freshmen at QB?  Remember all those posts tearing out their hair over delay of game penalties?  Obviously the latter isn't completely fixed since we got two in a row against USC, but we're not rushing to the line every play like we were a while back.

I feel like after Luck it took Shaw a few years to make the decision to adapt the offense to the strengths of the players rather than expect the players to fit into the system.  I'm thinking both about what he asks the QB to do and about the power running game.

The counter to my argument is that the team won its first Rose Bowl in 40 years the year after Luck left with redshirt freshman Kevin Hogan at QB.  To that I'd say that we had a great OL along with Stepfan Taylor, that we need to remember how we struggled to move the ball under Nunes the first half of the season, and that Hogan turned out to be an amazing talent himself.  And don't forget Michigan State the next year ... talk about pounding your head against a wall.

[stupac2]

And don't forget Michigan State the next year ... talk about pounding your head against a wall.

Well that Michigan State team had one of the best defenses of the last decade, so it's not horribly surprising that we had a tough time. And don't forget that we were a couple of bullshit calls away from winning!

[stupac2]

And don't forget Michigan State the next year ... talk about pounding your head against a wall.

Well that Michigan State team had one of the best defenses of the last decade, so it's not horribly surprising that we had a tough time. And don't forget that we were a couple of bullshit calls away from winning!

[CTcard]

Sure. As I say, not at all certain yet. I just think, you put together a few things -- it's not just the offense looking bad with Daniels, it's that their other highly-rated QBs weren't better than a true freshman. That's a bit suspicious. Not looking great with Kessler, that's a bit suspicious. Jettisoning Wilcox and seeing him immediately lead a dominant defense in Wisconsin, that's a bit suspicious. Wilcox's replacement only putting together solid defenses, that's also a bit suspicious. Anyway you start adding this stuff up together and start to wonder, as you conclude. I think we're in the same place, just putting the emphasis on different facts differently.

Much of this I agree with, and these arguments are generally much more solid than anything Wilner wrote. 

Some bits … 

The $C offense was not terrible under Kessler and Helton. 
Under Helton as HC, that 2015 team averaged 31 points  and 406 yds per game. All against Power 5 teams. 
That may not have matched the potential of the talent, but it wasn't like early the early 2012 Stanford team. 

I agree that putting yourself in a position of having to start a first year QB, who didn't even show up for spring ball, is some combination of poor planning, development, and recruiting. However, it's also not necessarily a long term barrier to success. 
I'm also a little suspicious of jettisoning Wilcox, but as you noted replacing him with Pendergast is not necessarily a disaster.  It's not at all clear to me that Wilcox would have performed better. 

I don't think there have been enough games this year to draw any particular conclusion on the 2018 team, and I don't think it is reasonable to completely ignore his wins with Darnold as the QB with the claim that he won't ever again have such a QB. 

I do think that his decision to start Browne over Darnold for three games last year was very bad. (Apparently it was obviously bad to the extent it caused some dissension in the locker room - though dissension in the $C locker room doesn't need a specific source.) (And I suspect that bad decision may have played into choosing Daniels to start so early.)
I also haven't seen any particular impressive trait of Helton as HC. 


All in all, Helton is probably better for $C than Sarkisian, possibly Orgeron, Kiffin, Hackett, Smith or Tollner. (maybe not Orgeron) That may not be particularly impressive, but it does comprise five or six of the past seven $C coaches.

[CTcard]

Sure. As I say, not at all certain yet. I just think, you put together a few things -- it's not just the offense looking bad with Daniels, it's that their other highly-rated QBs weren't better than a true freshman. That's a bit suspicious. Not looking great with Kessler, that's a bit suspicious. Jettisoning Wilcox and seeing him immediately lead a dominant defense in Wisconsin, that's a bit suspicious. Wilcox's replacement only putting together solid defenses, that's also a bit suspicious. Anyway you start adding this stuff up together and start to wonder, as you conclude. I think we're in the same place, just putting the emphasis on different facts differently.

Much of this I agree with, and these arguments are generally much more solid than anything Wilner wrote. 

Some bits … 

The $C offense was not terrible under Kessler and Helton. 
Under Helton as HC, that 2015 team averaged 31 points  and 406 yds per game. All against Power 5 teams. 
That may not have matched the potential of the talent, but it wasn't like early the early 2012 Stanford team. 

I agree that putting yourself in a position of having to start a first year QB, who didn't even show up for spring ball, is some combination of poor planning, development, and recruiting. However, it's also not necessarily a long term barrier to success. 
I'm also a little suspicious of jettisoning Wilcox, but as you noted replacing him with Pendergast is not necessarily a disaster.  It's not at all clear to me that Wilcox would have performed better. 

I don't think there have been enough games this year to draw any particular conclusion on the 2018 team, and I don't think it is reasonable to completely ignore his wins with Darnold as the QB with the claim that he won't ever again have such a QB. 

I do think that his decision to start Browne over Darnold for three games last year was very bad. (Apparently it was obviously bad to the extent it caused some dissension in the locker room - though dissension in the $C locker room doesn't need a specific source.) (And I suspect that bad decision may have played into choosing Daniels to start so early.)
I also haven't seen any particular impressive trait of Helton as HC. 


All in all, Helton is probably better for $C than Sarkisian, possibly Orgeron, Kiffin, Hackett, Smith or Tollner. (maybe not Orgeron) That may not be particularly impressive, but it does comprise five or six of the past seven $C coaches.

[stupac2]

As I noted, even in the year Sark got fired he out-performed Helton. It's possible that Helton has improved from then, and it's possible that Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap, but I don't think you can look at the full weight of the evidence and say that Helton > Sark. The other guys it's harder to compare since they didn't coach the same team.

[stupac2]

As I noted, even in the year Sark got fired he out-performed Helton. It's possible that Helton has improved from then, and it's possible that Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap, but I don't think you can look at the full weight of the evidence and say that Helton > Sark. The other guys it's harder to compare since they didn't coach the same team.

[CTcard]

As I noted, even in the year Sark got fired he out-performed Helton. It's possible that Helton has improved from then, and it's possible that Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap, but I don't think you can look at the full weight of the evidence and say that Helton > Sark. 

The full weight of the evidence includes that Sark was an alcoholic who did not have control of his problem. That's untenable in a football coach and somebody in charge of college students. Without anything else, I'd say that makes Helton better than Sark. 
[I am contending that this is a more important issue that is implied by the statement "Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap".]

While most metrics imply that U$C performed somewhat better in the first five games than the latter nine in 2015 that's not definitive as to their coaching abilities. Firstly, the difference isn't great. Secondly, Helton was coaching the first five games, so had a hand in those as well. Thirdly, Helton was dealing with the fall out of the firing of Sark over the latter half of the season - which is a handicap. Fourthly, in taking over a team mid-year Helton was not able to instill "his systems" whatever those may be. 

The full weight of the evidence would also include their full record. 
Helton is in total 28-11, 72%; in conf 20-6, 77%.  
Sark was 12-6, 67%; in conf 7-5, 58%. 
Helton has a better win percentage over a longer stretch. 

Neither of these records is particularly impressive given the advantages one has at $C, but I'd say you can look at the full weight of the evidence and conclude Helton > Sark - even if not everyone would agree.

[CTcard]

As I noted, even in the year Sark got fired he out-performed Helton. It's possible that Helton has improved from then, and it's possible that Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap, but I don't think you can look at the full weight of the evidence and say that Helton > Sark. 

The full weight of the evidence includes that Sark was an alcoholic who did not have control of his problem. That's untenable in a football coach and somebody in charge of college students. Without anything else, I'd say that makes Helton better than Sark. 
[I am contending that this is a more important issue that is implied by the statement "Sark's off-the-field behavior isn't worth the gap".]

While most metrics imply that U$C performed somewhat better in the first five games than the latter nine in 2015 that's not definitive as to their coaching abilities. Firstly, the difference isn't great. Secondly, Helton was coaching the first five games, so had a hand in those as well. Thirdly, Helton was dealing with the fall out of the firing of Sark over the latter half of the season - which is a handicap. Fourthly, in taking over a team mid-year Helton was not able to instill "his systems" whatever those may be. 

The full weight of the evidence would also include their full record. 
Helton is in total 28-11, 72%; in conf 20-6, 77%.  
Sark was 12-6, 67%; in conf 7-5, 58%. 
Helton has a better win percentage over a longer stretch. 

Neither of these records is particularly impressive given the advantages one has at $C, but I'd say you can look at the full weight of the evidence and conclude Helton > Sark - even if not everyone would agree.

[stupac2]

The difference wasn't slight! The difference was quite large! Going from "does about the same as average" to "does several yards per play better than average" is not a trivial difference, it's the difference between UCLA and Notre Dame last year. Also, this post is solely about their abilities on the field, obviously Sark wasn't a tenable coach while battling alcoholism. And if you're going to give Helton credit for leading the team after Sark was fired, then it makes some sense to give Sark credit for leading while battling his demons (or whatever you want to call it).

But what definitely doesn't make any sense is to compare Helton with a #3 overall QB and Sark with a 3rd rounder. Given how much of Helton's tenure is taken up with Darnold as the QB and how much better than part was then the rest of his oeuvre, it doesn't make sense to include it. When you actually do the apples-to-apples comparison of the two coaches with the same team and measured against what their opponents typically yielded, Sark was significantly better. Full stop.

[stupac2]

The difference wasn't slight! The difference was quite large! Going from "does about the same as average" to "does several yards per play better than average" is not a trivial difference, it's the difference between UCLA and Notre Dame last year. Also, this post is solely about their abilities on the field, obviously Sark wasn't a tenable coach while battling alcoholism. And if you're going to give Helton credit for leading the team after Sark was fired, then it makes some sense to give Sark credit for leading while battling his demons (or whatever you want to call it).

But what definitely doesn't make any sense is to compare Helton with a #3 overall QB and Sark with a 3rd rounder. Given how much of Helton's tenure is taken up with Darnold as the QB and how much better than part was then the rest of his oeuvre, it doesn't make sense to include it. When you actually do the apples-to-apples comparison of the two coaches with the same team and measured against what their opponents typically yielded, Sark was significantly better. Full stop.