Serious question for McKinley fans...................

Status
Not open for further replies.

Benchboss1

Well-known member
I first want to make it clear that this thread is not intended to start any trouble. So if that is your goal, please do not post.

I am just curious as to how McKinley fans are feeling about Coach Wattley. This is year 2 for Wattley. What thoughts about Coach Wattley do some of you have? What is the state of the McKinley program now, compared to what it was before Wattley arrived?
Does he seem to be getting more kids out for football? Does he appear to be trying to build the youth/lower levels of the program?
How is he connecting with the kids?
How is he handling the pressure/parents/expectations?

Yes, I am a Massillon fan. Yes, I am glad that Massillon won yesterday and has had success against McKinley lately.
I also have the utmost respect for the Bulldogs and their program. I also respect the rivalry.
I also realize that without McKinley, Massillon wouldn't be the program that they are, and I also realize that without Massillon, McKinley wouldn't be the program that they are.

Again, this is a serious attempt to see how McKinley fans are feeling about Coach Wattley, not an attempt at starting any trouble.
 

TigerPaw

Well-known member
Seriously bb you shouldn't ask the day after a blowout, but good luck.

I will say Wattley did well at St. V and can do well at McKinley too but it takes more than 1 guy. Total district and community buy-in and support.

Btw many posters here would not believe the vitriol towards the Moores (plural) after his 1st 2 years - by some of our very own. (led by a certain fat know it all too - you know who you are). I won't forget.
 

ohiocrew

Member
Fair question Benchboss1. I also have no interest in throwing HC Wattley under the bus. However, in my observations the past two seasons, I haven't been overwhelmed with his performance or coaching abilities. Clearly, no success in beating Massillon. The varsity roster the past two seasons has been around 75, which is nothing expectational in comparison to HC Reardon's varsity players roster, during his four years at the helm. I made post last month that both Wattley and Reardon in terms that neither coach brought a strong defense to the table. Weak schemes. It was interesting before yesterday's game, Coach Moore was asked by one the WHBC radio guys to comment on the Canton McKinley defense. Moore's response was, in essence, its the same defense that Wattley ran at Akron St. V-M. Which can be translated to nothing special and very predictable. BTW, Wattley was not all that successful at St. V- M. He he was, he would still be there. Typical season was 7-3, with obviously a lot of recruited talent, being a private parochial school. Wattley's credentials were highly questioned upon his hiring. Nevertheless, you nailed it....its the Canton Board of Education which has made some odd decisions on coaches over the years. The Canton McKinley football program is clearly in decline, although not nearly as bad as GlenOak. Not certain if the kids in the Canton area have simply lost interest in football or what. But the talent level is decent, although not to the extent of the 1990s or 1980s. The players may like coach Wattley, but that does not always translate to success on the football field.
In summary, Wattley probably deserves another year or two. Nevertheless, he has not been spectacular in any facet of the football program thus far.
 

murphy13

Well-known member
Fair question Benchboss1. I also have no interest in throwing HC Wattley under the bus. However, in my observations the past two seasons, I haven't been overwhelmed with his performance or coaching abilities. Clearly, no success in beating Massillon. The varsity roster the past two seasons has been around 75, which is nothing expectational in comparison to HC Reardon's varsity players roster, during his four years at the helm. I made post last month that both Wattley and Reardon in terms that neither coach brought a strong defense to the table. Weak schemes. It was interesting before yesterday's game, Coach Moore was asked by one the WHBC radio guys to comment on the Canton McKinley defense. Moore's response was, in essence, its the same defense that Wattley ran at Akron St. V-M. Which can be translated to nothing special and very predictable. BTW, Wattley was not all that successful at St. V- M. He he was, he would still be there. Typical season was 7-3, with obviously a lot of recruited talent, being a private parochial school. Wattley's credentials were highly questioned upon his hiring. Nevertheless, you nailed it....its the Canton Board of Education which has made some odd decisions on coaches over the years. The Canton McKinley football program is clearly in decline, although not nearly as bad as GlenOak. Not certain if the kids in the Canton area have simply lost interest in football or what. But the talent level is decent, although not to the extent of the 1990s or 1980s. The players may like coach Wattley, but that does not always translate to success on the football field.
In summary, Wattley probably deserves another year or two. Nevertheless, he has not been spectacular in any facet of the football program thus far.
Wattley left St. V's to coach at the University of Akron.
 

dopamine

Active member
Fair question Benchboss1. I also have no interest in throwing HC Wattley under the bus. However, in my observations the past two seasons, I haven't been overwhelmed with his performance or coaching abilities. Clearly, no success in beating Massillon. The varsity roster the past two seasons has been around 75, which is nothing expectational in comparison to HC Reardon's varsity players roster, during his four years at the helm. I made post last month that both Wattley and Reardon in terms that neither coach brought a strong defense to the table. Weak schemes. It was interesting before yesterday's game, Coach Moore was asked by one the WHBC radio guys to comment on the Canton McKinley defense. Moore's response was, in essence, its the same defense that Wattley ran at Akron St. V-M. Which can be translated to nothing special and very predictable. BTW, Wattley was not all that successful at St. V- M. He he was, he would still be there. Typical season was 7-3, with obviously a lot of recruited talent, being a private parochial school. Wattley's credentials were highly questioned upon his hiring. Nevertheless, you nailed it....its the Canton Board of Education which has made some odd decisions on coaches over the years. The Canton McKinley football program is clearly in decline, although not nearly as bad as GlenOak. Not certain if the kids in the Canton area have simply lost interest in football or what. But the talent level is decent, although not to the extent of the 1990s or 1980s. The players may like coach Wattley, but that does not always translate to success on the football field.
In summary, Wattley probably deserves another year or two. Nevertheless, he has not been spectacular in any facet of the football program thus far.
Very good post.
 

dopamine

Active member
Right now everyone that I know and myself are overwhelmed how mediocre he is. His concept of defense is ridiculous and his idea seems to be the same of everyone that has been here since Cross left - we'll outscore everyone with our team speed and forget about the defense. He needs a real defensive co-ordinator that can teach the McKinley boys basic tackling and blocking techniques like McDaniels did with Kovacs when his job was on the line in 1990. If he brought back Grimsely to coach his defense ( I don't really know, I am being told this by my acquaintances) he is already in deep trouble. Grimsley killed Reardon and it looks like he is going to kill Wattley too.The defensive schemes are at best something you would find on any Saturday afternoon on a backlot touch football game. On offense, my observation is he was trying to make Wesley a hero and last year he possibly blew three games by trying to make Wesley the hero and not using his running backs more effectively in short range situations. Everything is designed to strike from long range and his teams can not drive down the field methodically without making some huge mistake that kills the drive. He loses to Massillon like that next year like he did yesterday - he's got to go. He said he would have a power house this year and his team looked bad even in winning even though he played the weakest schedule in McKinley history.
 

dopamine

Active member
Is it possible that Canton's just not producing the quality football players it once did? How's the youth program doing?
Don't start blaming the boys. They've done it for as long as I can remember. Brideweiser was famous for blaming the boys when he was getting crushed by Massillon. As soon as he was gone McKinley was competitive and they marched into the throne room 2 years later under Forbes. They were dancing in the streets in Massillon when Forbes left. I've heard that and heard it. Its not the coach, its the kids - they don't want to listen. You have a city of around 70,000 and all of the athletes are going to one high school and they are getting crushed by any team with a pulse and scraping by goober schools.

I hope Wattley wasn't just an affirmative action coach but It seems a big part of the problem is hiring coaches with the same theories on offense and defense. Big time offense and no defense.
 

clarkgriswold

Well-known member
Don't start blaming the boys. They've done it for as long as I can remember. Brideweiser was famous for blaming the boys when he was getting crushed by Massillon. As soon as he was gone McKinley was competitive and they marched into the throne room 2 years later under Forbes. They were dancing in the streets in Massillon when Forbes left. I've heard that and heard it. Its not the coach, its the kids - they don't want to listen. You have a city of around 70,000 and all of the athletes are going to one high school and they are getting crushed by any team with a pulse and scraping by goober schools.

I hope Wattley wasn't just an affirmative action coach but It seems a big part of the problem is hiring coaches with the same theories on offense and defense. Big time offense and no defense.
Easy there. I asked a question, I didn't point a finger at anyone. I've seen communities lose their programs when the focus of the communities changed and their youth programs slid.

Also, public high school football programs in the larger urban areas of Ohio have fallen off precipitously over the years. Cleveland football is now inconsequential with the fall of Glenwood. The Akron City Series hasn't had a state contender in a decade. Youngstown? Toledo? Columbus? Cinci? Why couldn't Canton be the same?
 

falguin

Well-known member
Easy there. I asked a question, I didn't point a finger at anyone. I've seen communities lose their programs when the focus of the communities changed and their youth programs slid.

Also, public high school football programs in the larger urban areas of Ohio have fallen off precipitously over the years. Cleveland football is now inconsequential with the fall of Glenwood. The Akron City Series hasn't had a state contender in a decade. Youngstown? Toledo? Columbus? Cinci? Why couldn't Canton be the same?
Harding is still tough despite loss of industry and students.
 

ohiocrew

Member
Dopamine your posts are very much on the mark. I could be wrong, but I have been led to believe, however, that Josh Grimsley was brought on the coaching staff to focus on the defensive line only. I think that the "defensive game plan" if you can call it that, is the responsibility of Wattley. If that is indeed a fact, it only further contributes to the observation that Wattley is over his head. Saturday's loss to Massillon was an embarrassment to over 100 years of the Canton McKinley football program, once the pride of Ohio. But here again, I go back to the Canton City School Board who makes these coaching hire decisions. I am disappointed in John Rinaldi, school board president, who I thought was better judge of talent. In any event, it will take a head coach of a very special talent, like that of a Terry Forbes or a Ron Chismar to turn the mess around at McKinley. Not certain the community is genuinely interested, however. A frustrating situation to say the least!
 

dopamine

Active member
Easy there. I asked a question, I didn't point a finger at anyone. I've seen communities lose their programs when the focus of the communities changed and their youth programs slid.

Also, public high school football programs in the larger urban areas of Ohio have fallen off precipitously over the years. Cleveland football is now inconsequential with the fall of Glenwood. The Akron City Series hasn't had a state contender in a decade. Youngstown? Toledo? Columbus? Cinci? Why couldn't Canton be the same?
You asked nothing. Your question veiled a statement. You have one high school for a city of 70,000. Why isn't Massilon going down - they are div 2 but they are kicking Canton's rear end so is Perry Township. They are struggling with smaller and weaker schools that educate the farm areas. Are you implying that the the White farmers are superior to the Negroes of the city?
Ouside of the Glenville situation Cleveland's Public school have never been relevant. The same can be said of the other cities you mention Youngstown's football in the public schools have' been relevant since the 50's the same with Toledo. Columbus was never relevant.
If what you say is true there is no need for sports. Save the tax payers some money. It really isn't fair to send kids out with no chance of winning. They could play intramural sports instead.
Really McKinley should be very similar to the Glenville teams of the Ginn years now.
 

Grepneff4545Bubba

Active member
Whatley doing best he can. But agreed this defense is not McKinley Nature. Therefore what's the answer? For the Season left, Whatley take over D and sit current D Coach on sidelines with water bottles. Massillon has a strong D. Perry is good. But will not get past Massillon. D2 is very strong. It will be very competitive. Winton Woods, Avon are peaking flying high again. TCC very Strong and many say LaSalle will repeat but that Hoban is best team in state. It will be interesting for sho
 

dopamine

Active member
Dopamine your posts are very much on the mark. I could be wrong, but I have been led to believe, however, that Josh Grimsley was brought on the coaching staff to focus on the defensive line only. I think that the "defensive game plan" if you can call it that, is the responsibility of Wattley. If that is indeed a fact, it only further contributes to the observation that Wattley is over his head. Saturday's loss to Massillon was an embarrassment to over 100 years of the Canton McKinley football program, once the pride of Ohio. But here again, I go back to the Canton City School Board who makes these coaching hire decisions. I am disappointed in John Rinaldi, school board president, who I thought was better judge of talent. In any event, it will take a head coach of a very special talent, like that of a Terry Forbes or a Ron Chismar to turn the mess around at McKinley. Not certain the community is genuinely interested, however. A frustrating situation to say the least!
I hear that too about Grimsley. I hear but its only what I am told. He stunk as a coach before and he stinks now; that defensive line looks worse than last year's. I still fear he is being manipulated into the head coach position by his friends in Canton. Yes I agree McKinley needs another Chismar. His defenses were feared by every school in the state and that includes Massillon. God those kids hit in those days.
Wattley said this team was going to be better than last years and they were considerably worse.
They will have to go and approach a tough coach and coax him here like Forbes was not rely on just any guy who applies. IfWattley is in charge of the defense than this debacle is on him.
 

clarkgriswold

Well-known member
You asked nothing. Your question veiled a statement. You have one high school for a city of 70,000. Why isn't Massilon going down - they are div 2 but they are kicking Canton's rear end so is Perry Township. They are struggling with smaller and weaker schools that educate the farm areas. Are you implying that the the White farmers are superior to the Negroes of the city?
Ouside of the Glenville situation Cleveland's Public school have never been relevant. The same can be said of the other cities you mention Youngstown's football in the public schools have' been relevant since the 50's the same with Toledo. Columbus was never relevant.
If what you say is true there is no need for sports. Save the tax payers some money. It really isn't fair to send kids out with no chance of winning. They could play intramural sports instead.
Really McKinley should be very similar to the Glenville teams of the Ginn years now.
Trust me, it was a question. That's why I put a question mark at the end of it, actually one at the end of both of the questions. I'm as curious as anyone as to why their program appears to be failing. I'm also not saying they should give up. That's a disservice to the kids. They need to ask the serious questions to determine the answer and direct their efforts to the solution.

Massillon isn't going down because their entire community in wholly invested in the success of the program. Everybody in the community cares about the program. I don't think that can be said for Canton.

I'm a neutral observer here. I don't have an agenda like many on yappi Massillon and McK threads. Ohio football is better when Massillon and McK are both at the top of their games so it's my hope that day returns.
 

PerryDude

Active member
That is what must be frustrating. On paper this was to be one of their more talented teams in recent years - at least in terms of D1 offers. Like 6 or7? Just hasn’t come together yet esp. yesterday.
I think the quality is definitely there! Just need to harness that power somehow! Tons of talent littered all over the field!
 

clarkgriswold

Well-known member
Well then, TigerPaw and PerryDude have answered my questions. From their observations, it appears that the talent is there but McK isn't putting their kids in a position to succeed. I know Wattley was well liked at SVSM but the playcalling was often called into question.
 

TigerPaw

Well-known member
Biggest weakness was d-line though. McKinley teams of old always had great d lines. Offensively yes they have skill and can score points when they are clicking but Massillon has a pretty good d and Wesley couldn’t get it going.
 

PerryDude

Active member
Trust me, it was a question. That's why I put a question mark at the end of it, actually one at the end of both of the questions. I'm as curious as anyone as to why their program appears to be failing. I'm also not saying they should give up. That's a disservice to the kids. They need to ask the serious questions to determine the answer and direct their efforts to the solution.

Massillon isn't going down because their entire community in wholly invested in the success of the program. Everybody in the community cares about the program. I don't think that can be said for Canton.

I'm a neutral observer here. I don't have an agenda like many on yappi Massillon and McK threads. Ohio football is better when Massillon and McK are both at the top of their games so it's my hope that day returns.
Trust me, it was a question. That's why I put a question mark at the end of it, actually one at the end of both of the questions. I'm as curious as anyone as to why their program appears to be failing. I'm also not saying they should give up. That's a disservice to the kids. They need to ask the serious questions to determine the answer and direct their efforts to the solution.

Massillon isn't going down because their entire community in wholly invested in the success of the program. Everybody in the community cares about the program. I don't think that can be said for Canton.

I'm a neutral observer here. I don't have an agenda like many on yappi Massillon and McK threads. Ohio football is better when Massillon and McK are both at the top of their games so it's my hope that day returns.
[/QUOTE
Well then, TigerPaw and PerryDude have answered my questions. From their observations, it appears that the talent is there but McK isn't putting their kids in a position to succeed. I know Wattley was well liked at SVSM but the playcalling was often called into question.
I would still like to see Wattley have another go but maybe tweek some shizzle on D for sure.
 

garydaddy1

Well-known member
That is what must be frustrating. On paper this was to be one of their more talented teams in recent years - at least in terms of D1 offers. Like 6 or7? Just hasn’t come together yet esp. yesterday.
And maybe it is one of the most talented Pup teams in recent years.
However, could it be that teams like Massillon and Perry are even more talented?
The scores say, YES!!!!
Those two W's weren't flukes.
 

PerryDude

Active member
And maybe it is one of the most talented Pup teams in recent years.
However, could it be that teams like Massillon and Perry are even more talented?
The scores say, YES!!!!
Those two W's weren't flukes.
I love what our kids do, super hard working on the field, lots of talent with lots of heart but when the seasons over all these McKinley kids are genetically gifted and will get the offers that Perry kids won’t. But the coaching is just different.
 

dopamine

Active member
And maybe it is one of the most talented Pup teams in recent years.
However, could it be that teams like Massillon and Perry are even more talented?
The scores say, YES!!!!
Those two W's weren't flukes.
Yeah small DIV 2 schools have more talent than a DIV1 school. Get real, idiot. That Perry Heights has more talent than the city of Canton is ludicrous. Or a city the half the size of Canton has more talent to beat them by 4 TD's - what are you drinking? When did you move into Perry township from Minerva?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
.
Top