[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.