In Defense of Frank Maile

YoungBloodAggie · Post by **YoungBloodAggie** » December 6th, 2018, 8:48 am

I have seen some commentary on here that indicates that Coach Frank had his chance to prove himself as the DC and failed, which is why we brought in Patterson. However, some advanced stats show that Frank did very well last year and there's no reason to believe that our defense would have been any worse with him in control this year.

Here are the S&P+ defensive ratings for the past two years:
2018 - 34th in the nation, overall score of 23.6 (lower score is better)
2017 - 42nd in the nation, overall score of 24.7

When you factor in that we added Tipa and Fua, got an additional year of development from Woodward, and returned most of our starters; you start to think that maybe Patterson was beneficial only in that offenses saw a different look, but perhaps at the cost of familiarity with the base 3-4 system from last year. Aggies22 or someone else with more football knowledge than I might comment on that, but I firmly believe that Frank is one of the best assets we have in the program right now. I hope that he is retained as DC and is given a raise commensurate with his great work. Maybe we can give him some of that $800K from Wells' buyout and spread it over a three or four year deal!

Madmartigan · Post by **Madmartigan** » December 6th, 2018, 9:00 am

YoungBloodAggie wrote: ↑
December 6th, 2018, 8:48 am
I have seen some commentary on here that indicates that Coach Frank had his chance to prove himself as the DC and failed, which is why we brought in Patterson. However, some advanced stats show that Frank did very well last year and there's no reason to believe that our defense would have been any worse with him in control this year.

Here are the S&P+ defensive ratings for the past two years:
2018 - 34th in the nation, overall score of 23.6 (lower score is better)
2017 - 42nd in the nation, overall score of 24.7

When you factor in that we added Tipa and Fua, got an additional year of development from Woodward, and returned most of our starters; you start to think that maybe Patterson was beneficial only in that offenses saw a different look, but perhaps at the cost of familiarity with the base 3-4 system from last year. Aggies22 or someone else with more football knowledge than I might comment on that, but I firmly believe that Frank is one of the best assets we have in the program right now. I hope that he is retained as DC and is given a raise commensurate with his great work. Maybe we can give him some of that $800K from Wells' buyout and spread it over a three or four year deal!

Another big factor that skews the discussion is that the defense had to spend an inordinate amount of time on the field last year due to the fast tempo and fast strike offense. I'm too lazy to look, but I"ll bet our defense held up pretty well when you look at yard per play.

ratofallaggies · Post by **ratofallaggies** » December 6th, 2018, 9:03 am

YoungBloodAggie wrote: ↑
December 6th, 2018, 8:48 am
I have seen some commentary on here that indicates that Coach Frank had his chance to prove himself as the DC and failed, which is why we brought in Patterson. However, some advanced stats show that Frank did very well last year and there's no reason to believe that our defense would have been any worse with him in control this year.

Here are the S&P+ defensive ratings for the past two years:
2018 - 34th in the nation, overall score of 23.6 (lower score is better)
2017 - 42nd in the nation, overall score of 24.7

When you factor in that we added Tipa and Fua, got an additional year of development from Woodward, and returned most of our starters; you start to think that maybe Patterson was beneficial only in that offenses saw a different look, but perhaps at the cost of familiarity with the base 3-4 system from last year. Aggies22 or someone else with more football knowledge than I might comment on that, but I firmly believe that Frank is one of the best assets we have in the program right now. I hope that he is retained as DC and is given a raise commensurate with his great work. Maybe we can give him some of that $800K from Wells' buyout and spread it over a three or four year deal!

He's a HUGE reason both are in Logan.....

Elkaggie · Post by **Elkaggie** » December 6th, 2018, 9:08 am

I couldn’t agree more. I suggested that Patterson benefited so much for coming into an excellent situation and used our players to make him look so good. I know we were more aggressive this year and had more takeaways but We also had more talent and the players to play this style. I am sure that FM has learned a lot this last year and I really believe he deserves a serious look at DC.

tipitup · Post by **tipitup** » December 6th, 2018, 10:24 am

Don't underestimate what Patterson brought to the table. i'm more versed with high school, but one year the defense was one of the top in the state, and the DC left because of his wife's job, and with a group of at least 6 All state players coming back, the new DC couldn't do anything with the talent he had. probably not the same situation, but the top man can make a huge difference. I thought this years defense really created more problems than last years.

inconspicuous · Post by **inconspicuous** » December 6th, 2018, 11:29 am

Keep Frank for sure. If DC or HC is another story but he deserves no less to stay associate HC and get a raise. that is the minimum. If he is not ready he should no doubt be rewarded for all that he brings to the table. He truly reminds me of Orgeron. D line coach and superstar recruiter that was not really a coordinator but is making a good HC the second time around. USU is lucky to have Frank on the staff and will be so if he continues to stay. I am sure his phone is currently ringing for jobs but he is loyal and committed to the kids and USU.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » December 6th, 2018, 1:00 pm

Wells decision to name Shaver and Maile co-DCs was terrible. It's a miracle the defense didn't fall to pieces.
Imagine you're given a job to build a house, and another guy is also given the job to build the same house. You're both given control of specific areas, but you're to collaborate on the overall plans. Maybe you want to do something forward-thinking with the exterior. You have ideas about different materials, techniques, etc. You want to put something of your own into it. But the other guy you're sharing the boss role with has some big ideas with the interior and his ideas won't work with your ideas. You talk about it and find common ground - the only solution is to be more conventional. Build the house, nothing fancy, nothing creative. Taking another course will risk dividing the crew, creating hostility with the other co-boss guy, and resulting in a house of poor design and quality.

The co-DC was a mistake. The fact that it didn't result in implosion is a credit to both Maile and Shaver. Nothing in that situation provides value in evaluating Maile or Shaver on their ability to be a DC.

inconspicuous · Post by **inconspicuous** » December 6th, 2018, 1:02 pm

brownjeans wrote:Wells decision to name Shaver and Maile co-DCs was terrible. It's a miracle the defense didn't fall to pieces.
Imagine you're given a job to build a house, and another guy is also given the job to build the same house. You're both given control of specific areas, but you're to collaborate on the overall plans. Maybe you want to do something forward-thinking with the exterior. You have ideas about different materials, techniques, etc. You want to put something of your own into it. But the other guy you're sharing the boss role with has some big ideas with the interior and his ideas won't work with your ideas. You talk about it and find common ground - the only solution is to be more conventional. Build the house, nothing fancy, nothing creative. Taking another course will risk dividing the crew, creating hostility with the other co-boss guy, and resulting in a house of poor design and quality.

The co-DC was a mistake. The fact that it didn't result in implosion is a credit to both Maile and Shaver. Nothing in that situation provides value in evaluating Maile or Shaver on their ability to be a DC.

Totally agree and this is a knock on Matt Wells. But he did learn from it and corrected it

Upcoming Events

Event Results