Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

So much for Derek Mason

Posted: 08/29/2014 11:35 AM

So much for Derek Mason 


As Head Coach at Vanderbilt, gets pummeled by Temple 37-7...in his debut

Another ex PAC 12er, former UCLA head coach Dorrell...absolutely stinks as OC. Plays 3 QBs out of desperation

And, Vanderbilt is coming off back to back 9-4 seasons

Kind of understand now, why Stanford fans were not that upset that Mason split

Last edited 08/29/2014 11:37 AM by vuiscool

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/29/2014 1:31 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


JFC, give the guy a chance. All you SEC people are f****** loony.
"Room service? Send up a larger room."

Groucho Marx
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/29/2014 2:05 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


Alright, alright...but when you lose to Temple, 37-7 ...with a coach that was instrumental in building a great Stanford D, it hurts...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/30/2014 6:20 AM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


Amazing how many people are writing Mason off after one game.

That's football fans for you, I guess.

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/30/2014 8:51 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


VU is cool but your post is not. First, Stanford fans were not "upset" that Mason "split," because he had earned his chance to be a head coach by all the great things he had done for us, and we were happy for him to have the opportunity though sorry he was leaving us. To interpret that as meaning we were not sorry to see his incompetent self go is the opposite of reality. I suppose all the NFL teams who came to Mason to learn his strategies did so because he was such a mediocre coach and they wanted to be mediocre like him.

And I don't think Mason built Stanford's great D overnight, did he? Didn't it take a year or two to recruit the players he needed to beat the hurry-up spread offense? But he's supposed to have Vandy playing at Stanford's level in their first game with a 3-4 defense?

As I'm sure you know, Vandy was not as good as its two-time 9-4 records suggest. In those two years they had a soft non-conference schedule, they won only one game against an SEC team that finished with a conference record of .500 or above, and they avoided playing the real heavyweights in the other division. I am rooting for Vandy, but the expectations were raised too high by the records of the past two years.

 Actually, the Vanderbilt D (which was the weakest part of the team last year) did fine against Temple, they were just on the field virtually the entire game after the offense and special teams turned over the ball SEVEN times! You are right that the offense was horrific, ZERO successful drives. Mason's ultimately responsible but it's the first game and they are playing a lot of young players. Give him a season then evaluate.

Last edited 08/31/2014 10:53 AM by burgundy

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/30/2014 10:38 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 



burgundy wrote: VU is cool but your post is not. First, Stanford fans were not "upset" that Mason "split," because he had earned his chance to be a head coach by all the great things he had done for us, and we were happy for him to have the opportunity though sorry he was leaving us. To interpret that as meaning we were not sorry to see his incompetent self go is the opposite of reality. I suppose all the NFL teams who came to Mason to learn his strategies did so because he was such a mediocre coach and they wanted to be mediocre like him.

And I don't think Mason built Stanford's great D overnight, did he? Didn't it take a year or two to recruit the players he needed to beat the hurry-up spread offense? But he's supposed to have Vandy playing at Stanford's level in their first game with a 3-4 defense?

As I'm sure you know, Vandy was not as good as its two-time 9-4 records suggest. In those two years they had a soft non-conference schedule, they won only one game against an SEC team that finished with a conference record of .500 or above, and they avoided playing the real heavyweights in the other division. I am rooting for Vandy, but the expectations were raised too high by the records of the past two years.

 Actually, the Vanderbilt D (which was the weakest part of the team last year) did fine against Temple, they were just on the field virtually the entire game after the offense and special teams turned over the ball SEVEN times! You are right that the offense was horrific, ZERO sustained drives. Mason's ultimately responsible but it's the first game and they are playing a lot of young players. Give him a season then evaluate.
As a VU fan, I agree with you to an extent. It is true that a 37-7 loss to Temple is completely and totally inexcusable, however. I could understand not going to a bowl game, but the four out of conference games should have been automatic wins. I trust that Mason is a defensive guru, but I think our main issue is that he hired a bonehead for an OC and is giving him full reign. I hope he gets comfortable, because he just wasn't leading the team in a meaningful way--totally immobile on the sideline. 

I hope things get better, because there is considerable talent on this roster. We'll just have to see. If they don't make adjustments, next week against Ole Miss could be a 0-100 game. 

Congrats on a solid win to start the year--I've got nothing but respect for Stanford.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/31/2014 10:51 AM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


It is such a strong tendency to extrapolate from the present into the future (I do it all the time: based on the first half etc.) but extrapolating from an N of 1 is obviously not very accurate. Best to give the coaches and team a longer trial.

That's one of the many great things about sports: no matter how badly you played last time, the next time out is a chance for redemption. I suspect these coaches are collectively smart enough to have a frank discussion about what needs to be done differently next week. As horrific as Vandy's game was for its fans to watch (I couldn't take it any more after the first half), it must have been even worse for the coaches.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/31/2014 12:05 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


I'm not sure Vandy is so great.  That 9-4 record is a bit misleading when you look at the schedule and circumstances.

It's possible Mason made a horrible OC decision like Sonny Dykes did with Andy Buh.  But Mason has proven he is a good coach and leader, and he learns from mistakes and fixes them.  I'd be less worried about the long-term if I were a Vandy fan, but probably just as concerned in the near term.  

BTW, LMAO at Vandy playing THREE FCS teams this season!

Orange Slices for Everyone!

Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/31/2014 12:14 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


yes, this is the easiest non-con schedule ever, which is why losing the first one is so disheartening.

Dorrell could be a huge mistake as OC, and if so I hope Mason cuts his losses, but I think it's too early to tell. Not sure if the scheme itself is the problem, or just execution owing to the fact that you really can't simulate games in practice. If there is no improvement next week, that would be telling.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/31/2014 12:25 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


I don't think you want to try getting your offense going against the Ole Miss defense.

Orange Slices for Everyone!

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 08/31/2014 12:29 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


Actually it's just one.  Massachusetts and Old Dominion are recent promotions to I-A, playing in the MAC and C-USA respectively.  Only Charleston Southern is I-AA.

Still a feather-light OOC, since the aforementioned Massachusetts and Old Dominion are essentially I-A in name only.
"The prisoner who now stands before you was caught red-handed showing feelings, showing feelings of an almost human nature" --- Roger Waters
Reply | Quote

Posted: 08/31/2014 7:47 PM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


don't think they have a choice at this point confused
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 09/02/2014 10:20 AM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


Losing to Temple by that much is embarrassing, so no excuse there, but he is a good coach, so hopefully he will make the necessary adjustments to fix everything that went wrong. Maybe he is a good coach, but maybe not as a head coach... I guess we will have to see with the rest of the season.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 09/03/2014 9:29 AM

Re: So much for Derek Mason 


Ya think?  he was defensive backfield coach prior to taking the UCLA job.  Bad hire as OC.


Re: So much for Derek Mason

yes, this is the easiest non-con schedule ever, which is why losing the first one is so disheartening.

Dorrell could be a huge mistake as OC, and if so I hope Mason cuts his losses, but I think it's too early to tell. Not sure if the scheme itself is the problem, or just execution owing to the fact that you really can't simulate games in practice. If there is no improvement next week, that would be telling.

Reply | Quote