Nah, i just think McElwain was better than he's given credit for and I think Strickiln is an incompetent executive who always takes the easiest possible path in everything related to this program. He only hires people who are indebted to him, either for past relationships or for giving them breaks they have not yet earned. He cares next to nothing at UF or its programs and sees this job as just a paycheck and potential resume builder (though I don't know where he'd go next) as he perpetually gravitates to inexperienced young people instead of established adults who might push back. Sometimes he'll get lucky, but it's only luck, not research or insight. But that's just me.
The "jury" is still out on Strictlin, but I am not judging him this early in his tenure. However, I have to admit that the NIL has made the life of a Athletic Director much more complicated than it was when the last guy was in charge. I still blame the last guy for Spurrier's departure... That will never change. But right now... maybe sit back and enjoy the ride that Napier will bring to Gator Nation, and our Football Program.
First of all, a "rebuild" takes place every year. The NFL is more of a fully cooked product whereas college ball has a BIG gap between what is a rookie (17-18 years old) and what is a retiring veteran (22-24). As a result, you are continually assessing/projecting what is going to work with the parts you currently have (freshmen/sophomores) and what needs some help. I think we can all get behind the notion that 1) what we thought we had in plenty of players did not pan out (see the GC article about the guys who left the program this past year) and that 2) the game of recruiting is NOT your father's (or grandfather's) game. Call it prudence in not acting like what we see all the time in the news or just plain oblivious to what has to happen in the current game, we do not have the same pieces we were used to having at our disposal. Think, at a minimum, depth and not all-SEC. This is especially true along both lines. But here to me is where we HAVE to put more emphasis in this argument. Mullen and Company had a philosophy (I mean, one besides "what, me worry?") and Napier and Co. has theirs. IMO, the former relied on hybrid players who can also be labelled as "tweeners". Not fast enough to play fast and not stout enough to play stout. I will leave IQ out of the equation, but disposition is very much in play. You don't acquire 100 or so players and not have a culture form. Now, I go back to what I originally posted. Napier sold a concept/philosophy to the Grand Poobas when he was considered. If you need to know anything about Napier, it is that he believes in his system approach and he spends his efforts in getting it up and running properly. He definitely appears to be averse to taking shortcuts for short-term gain (ie, winning a game by letting a "Jameis Winston" be himself), at least in the first year. We shall see what happens in the second year. I presume he has a better handle on personnel makeup and disposition and what is "wiggle room" and what is letting the inmates run the asylum. And those who were much more attached to the Mullen and Co. philosophy have now been effectively weeded out. But make no mistake, I don't care if it is between Mullen and Napier or it is between Orgeron and Kelly, there IS a gyration that is best described as "rebuilding". Or should I say, more than a usual year. My response to your post has basically one aspect: You are mainly seeing this as fans who see half empty and those who see half full. You are sort of trying to prevent the half full (or worse) crowds from overestimating the good effects of Napier on your football program of choice. And your tool of choice is to project the worse cases compounding each other, which to me is more than just discernment and is in the realm of fear mongering. I say...Napier has finished Year 1. Why the rush to judge? I get that other first year coaches had somewhat different results but it is what it is. If I may again state what is happening, Napier HAS been selected to run the UF football program and as I see it, he has presented to the stakeholders a plan for success and remained faithful to it. I also see it as using up a lot of his political capital in the first year. His choice. If he decides that the only way to get the house he desires is to tear it down to the foundation and a few of the better walls, that is his prerogative. And, if it turns out that his plan won't work in the SEC Wild, Wild West, then he WILL be removed...in time. And so my reply to you, if you are spending energy worrying about what is not going to occur this upcoming year (and likely the next 2), how does it help you, mental health-wise? I use one basic term to describe what I saw at the beginning of last season (even during the Utah game) and in the aftermath of the Spring game and the inflow-outflow of players: Sobering.
Great post. You framed exactly how I think most of us view the current state of affairs concerning the program. Nicely done.
Thank you for the thought out response. I appreciate it. I don't know why you think I'm a glass half-empty person when I think we'll have 8 or 9 wins. I'm the person who thinks there is talent on the team. I'm the one who doesn't think the cupboard was bare. And yet because I disagree that Napier had a total rebuild, I'm considered the negative one. That's what I don't get. Your argument is based on the presumption that Napier inherited a program devoid of SEC-level talent. I assume you base that in this logical premise -- that Napier is a good coach, and he had the right kind of talent, then success would have followed. Since it didn't, the talent wasn't there. You start with the idea that the coaching, by definition MUST be solid, even though everyone on his staff was inexperienced at this level of competition with the roles they had. But instead of acknowledging there were shortfalls in coaching and development, you assign the blame to the lack of talent. You say Mullen didn't recruit the right kind of athlete, that his talent analysis was wrong. The problem is the NFL -- who knows the most in the world -- disagrees with that assessment, as we tied for the fifth-most players taken in the draft. I would love to see Napier adopt a timed level of building a program. Had he sold that, I'd be on board. Recruit and dedicate the program to building up guys you can successfully recruit -- 3 and lower 4 stars who fit what you're doing. Focus on Florida kids and Florida high schools -- develop a real, dependable pipeline. Play a lot of young guys during that first year. If AR wasn't the kind of QB you wanted, don't play him. But that's not what has happened or is happening. We're recruiting like everyone else -- chasing stars and rankings. Which is fine, too. And if you saw a team that played a lot better at the end of the year than the beginning -- a team that you watched in spring and got you excited for the fall -- then that looks like what is happening. But is that what you saw? As I've said before, it's easy for us to say give a coach time. What do we care -- all it does to us is make our Saturdays a little less fun. But kids have a limited amount of time to play football, and every year of us giving Napier time is 20-25 percent of their playing time. Why are you willing to sacrifice their time for the sake of "giving him a chance." If Napier had inherited a team that had been in the gutter for a decade, that would be one thing. But that's not the case. We've consistently had top 10 classes. We've won three SEC Easts. We've had multiple 10-win seasons. We've had a Heisman finalist and the 4th pick in the draft. If he came in and saw the house and decided to tear it down instead of remodeling, that's on him. And like any client, we'd expect our contractor to show results, that it will be better than the old house. Maybe it will be, but you're just operating on faith in what you perceive Napier to be. He's not shown he can do this -- you just believe he will. That's fine, but articles of faith are personal. And since you asked, my mental health about football is fine. I'll hope we do well this fall and I don't get upset when we lose. But unless there's progress made, I'm also not going to ask others to join me in my personal faiths, whatever they might be.
I think this is much closer to the truth. There were serious issues- depth and talent at specific positions, overall speed, foundational recruiting issues and a lot of that is on UAA and UF. But there was more talent that the w/l record showed last year. There was zero reason to play like that vs USF or lose to vandy. But Napier wanted to stick to a script both on and off the field. He was not going to adjust for AR, he’s admittedly taken a slow, methodical approach in the portal… and stick to his guns with the type of offense they run. So if he whiffs on big time talent and doesn’t scheme up the difference. That’ll be on him.
