Should we have kept Scott Stoker?
- Thread starter FeralFelidae
- Start date
It is still too early to tell. The defense looked good against NMSU, looked decent against Texas, and didn't show up against Army. I don't think Stokers D would have done much better tonight against Army. I think next week will be a good indicator if our defense has improved.
I know Army runs a scheme we won't see again, but they did not punt. Not. All. Day.
That tells me that UTEP's defense is lacking in basic fundamentals. They should have been able to coordinate a defense to at least get off the field ONCE. Blow up a play. They just let Army line up and execute their offense, over and over again, even knowing what they were going to run. And they were helpless to stop them.
I don't expect them to stop Southern Miss. Not without the basics.
I don't care who you are our how bad you are. You can not give up 600 yards at home. Not to a team running 5 wideouts, not to a team that runs the option. No one. Sometimes I feel like not even 85 Buddy Ryan can unf*ck this mess we call a defense.
Stoker and Mason are completely opposite. Mason was brought in because spread offenses shredded Stoker's defense. Stoker's defense's however dominated power run and pro style offenses. Stoker's defenses would have been torched by NMSU and Texas. However, he would have held Army under 30.
In the preseason interviews Mason always brought up Army and how he was nervous and dreaded Army. I know why now, but in my worst nightmate I didnt picture a debacle like Saturday. Thats was unacceptable. I think we match up pretty well defensively with most of the teams in conference. However, I say that with alot of trepidation, after Saturday its hard to have alot of optimism.
In a perfect world we would have a dc who would be a happy median between Stoker and Mason.
In the preseason interviews Mason always brought up Army and how he was nervous and dreaded Army. I know why now, but in my worst nightmate I didnt picture a debacle like Saturday. Thats was unacceptable. I think we match up pretty well defensively with most of the teams in conference. However, I say that with alot of trepidation, after Saturday its hard to have alot of optimism.
In a perfect world we would have a dc who would be a happy median between Stoker and Mason.
Stoker's defenses were clobbered multiple times each of the last 3 seasons. We expect it now. So far this year the Miner defense has been whipped once and clobbered once.
The Army game should have been more competitive and would have been had the offense done anything. If you can't move the chains at all you are going to get whipped.
The Army game should have been more competitive and would have been had the offense done anything. If you can't move the chains at all you are going to get whipped.
And you can't move the chains if your defense can't get off the field, gives up 600+ yards. Yin and yang...
I know we're 3 games in with Mason but it seems like we're getting the same results. We're giving up yards in bunches and we're not getting any sacks or turnovers. Maybe it just comes down to a lack of talent on the defensive side of the ball.
Well, I thought Stoker's defense improved in the latter part of last season. Mason is installing a new system, which I imagine takes time (although you throw the system out the window against an option team that requires unique preparation; the Miners were not prepared). It's fair to see if Mason's defense will likewise improve over the course of the season, but I do not like what I've seen so far.
Stoker would have been torched, too; not a doubt in my mind.
In typical fashion, a la the Buffalo scenario from the Price era, UTEP scheduled Army when they struggled. Now their offense has the athletes to run the flexbone with special forces precision. Buffalo sucked when Price inked them to a home and home and he even admitted he did it because they were bad at the time. Then they recruited this totally unknown, way under the radar, running back from their home state (and a good qb) who tore it up on the field and now starts for the Green Bay Packers, James Starks.
Stoker was a proven winner. I don't regret his hiring, nor do I disagree with his firing. Kugler didn't like how he left the secondary one on one on every play because Stoker wanted to bring the heat every defensive down. Let's not forget that a few very short years back Stoker's defense got so much attention, his name was thrown the HC hat when Texas Tech was hiring.
Perhaps if you liked giving up points like a pin ball machine. UTEP yielded 35 points per game under Stoker, his idea of adjustments was to yell louder at halftime. And who do you think recruited the vast majority of those kids on the current UTEP defense that's given up 107 points the past two weeks?
Last edited:
Well, a little under 33 over his entire tenure, but the worst of those was 2013 when the Miners were undoubtedly rebuilding. 2014 was a little under 23. Over the last six games last season the average was a little under 23, which is why I said there was improvement over the course of the season. There were signs of improvement.
I'm not a coach by any means but I always feel like UTEP only gets 1 good lineman every 7 or 8 years. So I don't get why we're playing a 3-4 because you need really good linemen there are fewer on the field.
And the truth is, neither Stoker nor Mason (in 3 games) have been able to generate consistent pressure.
And the truth is, neither Stoker nor Mason (in 3 games) have been able to generate consistent pressure.
I don't believe anyone is losing any sleep over the OC being replaced. As for Stoker, no one should lose any sleep over him being let go.
Reasons to let Stoker go.
There is nothing wrong with putting a lot of pressure on a QB. But it's how you do it that counts. Stoker liked running pure man coverage and that's fine if you have the DBs who are capable of playing man. It's even more important if one of those is a freshman. Unless you're 100% confident that a freshman is the next Dion Sander's, you're probably not going to leave him on an island by himself. Stoker's problem was it didn't matter, he kept doing it even when he shouldn't. Then his schemes weren't very creative either. Although that's a matter of perception, but I'm on the side that his schemes weren't crafted very well. Reason to fire him? No adjustments even when adjustments were needed.
Mason's new
Although you'd like to see overnight improvement, you're rarely gonna get that. Mason is installing his schemes with new lingo. That takes a minute to get and understand. Credit Urban Meyer for keeping Luke Fickell as his DC when he took over. The kids already knew him and he knew them. They also knew his scheme's and terminology. That makes a big difference. As for Mason and Army, defending the triple option isn't easy and can be very frustrating for a team. It's not an offense you prepare four days for and think you're going to be good at defending it. We'll see how they do the rest of the season under him before issuing a grade.
So far, I'll give him a D.
Reasons to let Stoker go.
There is nothing wrong with putting a lot of pressure on a QB. But it's how you do it that counts. Stoker liked running pure man coverage and that's fine if you have the DBs who are capable of playing man. It's even more important if one of those is a freshman. Unless you're 100% confident that a freshman is the next Dion Sander's, you're probably not going to leave him on an island by himself. Stoker's problem was it didn't matter, he kept doing it even when he shouldn't. Then his schemes weren't very creative either. Although that's a matter of perception, but I'm on the side that his schemes weren't crafted very well. Reason to fire him? No adjustments even when adjustments were needed.
Mason's new
Although you'd like to see overnight improvement, you're rarely gonna get that. Mason is installing his schemes with new lingo. That takes a minute to get and understand. Credit Urban Meyer for keeping Luke Fickell as his DC when he took over. The kids already knew him and he knew them. They also knew his scheme's and terminology. That makes a big difference. As for Mason and Army, defending the triple option isn't easy and can be very frustrating for a team. It's not an offense you prepare four days for and think you're going to be good at defending it. We'll see how they do the rest of the season under him before issuing a grade.
So far, I'll give him a D.
Well gee, how does anyone EVER beat Army??!?
Most teams that I know of that have a type of offense like that on their calendar spend "some" time weeks prior developing a game plan.
But to answer your immediate question, better athletes playing disciplined football. Take that and rub it against what you saw with the Miners and tell me what you get.
