DelK

What Mack said. Until and unless an abused child learns that it was not their fault (VERY difficult) their brain and mind are warped. Some abused do well, others never do. I've seen two sisters who were abused and one "gets" it and the other doesn't. LP never did. Very sad. What is even more sad is the number of the abused in jail who could have been helped with treatment and were not.

HARD to believe those two are in the same universe, world, profession or what-have-you. Night and day, or, as BP used to say, "black and white.".

Big Red may have to rely on some of that offensive genius that Mike Riley has as described by Mack Brown if we do not develop a qb with the qualities the coaches would like to have.

 

SEEN: Wideout Jamal Turner beating true freshman corner Eric Lee on a go route for a touchdown. Zack Darlington threw the pass.

SEEN: Darlington throwing a perfect pass to tight end Luke McNitt for another score. It was the best throw of any quarterback during the 7-on-7 drill.

SEEN: Tough days overall for quarterbacks in 7-on-7 drills. Throwing with and against a strong wind, many held on to the ball too long and missed open quarterbacks. Josh Kalu picked off A.J. Bush while Jonathan Rose picked off Tommy Armstrong.

 

OWH

Hate to see them miss those open quarterbacks. [i'm sorry.]

Defense is generally ahead of the offense. But not since BC have we seen totally new systems. So, this will be interesting. It is likely that those of us who NEED to have a top ten football team, we may have to learn patience.

 

 

I really thought the quote from Banderas was funny and probably very true. Considering how slow the linebackers were to react. He said: in the old system we see the ball think about it and then react. In the new scheme we see the ball and react. And another was: last year we had a dictionary to memorize this years is a preschool book.

Now to me defense is pretty damn simple. There is no reason to make it complicated. Yes I know you have disguise blitzes and coverages but being overly complicated to the point they are afraid to react is pretty stupid coaching. You don't have the luxury of knowing where the ball is going so the faster you react the better meaning the simpler the the d the better.

I get what you are saying but in Pelini's defense when he had people running his defense the way he wanted, it was very good despite its complexities.

If you're a coach, then you're a teacher. You'd better be able to teach. To say Pelini's defense was "very good" despite it's complexities is probably true, if he got 11 guys to execute it consistently, it probably would be brilliant. 2009 showed that. Ndamukong Suh makes a lot of defenses look pretty good though. Same could be said for LaVonte David when he came into the picture.

 

The point is though, as great as Bo Pelini's defense is -or that image of what he wanted them to be that was trapped inside his head - it all meant nothing. Zip. Zero. Garbage. None of it matters if you can't teach your players to execute it. As we saw, they rarely did execute it and Bo told us as much on a weekly basis. So what kind of idiot watches his team not execute week after week, yet changes nothing? Stay the course Bo.....good for you, look what it got ya.

 

This new staff are teachers first. These guys are real coaches. They realize these players aren't pons on a chess board. This is football.

I'd only question the term "idiot" and maybe suggest "stubborn . . . something or other". And add, that the same could be said for using the same signal for the snap that the defense was reading.

 

I really thought the quote from Banderas was funny and probably very true. Considering how slow the linebackers were to react. He said: in the old system we see the ball think about it and then react. In the new scheme we see the ball and react. And another was: last year we had a dictionary to memorize this years is a preschool book.

 

Now to me defense is pretty damn simple. There is no reason to make it complicated. Yes I know you have disguise blitzes and coverages but being overly complicated to the point they are afraid to react is pretty stupid coaching. You don't have the luxury of knowing where the ball is going so the faster you react the better meaning the simpler the the d the better.

I get what you are saying but in Pelini's defense when he had people running his defense the way he wanted, it was very good despite its complexities.

Or, in his words, when the players executed, it was golden.

Can we say "most"? Presuming the guys who posted the vitriolic videos were not enamored of him.

And all the while the players, as near as we can tell, to a man loved their coaches. How does that work? Some in-depth interviews by Jack Stark may be in order.

It is probably very easy to complain about the bosses that are gone in order to explain why, in this case, guys on the team didn't play. That is even more true today when the sense of entitlement to "what you want when you want it in the color and texture you want it, never mind whether it is deserved or not" is rampant. But there are beginning to be a LOT of indications that "coaching up" players did not occur as we might have hoped. Joe Keels is quoted, my translation, as not knowing why he didn't get on the field. It reminds me of Osborne saying that all players were graded when on the field for game or practice. There are indications that did not happen under the two previous coaches. This is very interesting..

I've been trying to find the words to express the difference between the feel or attitude of HCMR and his staff compared to HCBP and his, and don't know where to begin. There is a sense of "we're all in this together", "I don't know all the answers", "we have a plan based on thinking and experience that may change here and there", and, perhaps most of all respect for the press, fans and all involved. Simply amazing. .

My impression of Bear Bryant was not that he was a caring, sympathetic coach who cared about ALL the players. I'm glad to have HCMR correct that.

If little things add up, having experts as assistant coaches ought to add a good deal to the team. Looks to me as though we have a pretty knowledgeable set of guys teaching the football team.

Adding in what Joe Ganz is quoted as saying about quarterback struggles rather adds to the picture of a staff trying to force players into roles for which they weren't exactly suited.

never seen this before

 

PRICELESS!!!!!

Without knowing details, it is very difficult for me to comment on whether there was mismanagement of individuals or wasn't. Pretty much takes intimate knowledge of the situation to say that and I have no guess as to what reporters know or think the know. A practice that seemed prevalent brought me to wonder how it was that some starting players fell in and out of favor. I presume some made a mistake on a play and it seemed if they were out of favor they didn't see the playing field again If they were out, they seemed to sit and sit and sit which makes me wonder why they started in the first place. As an aside, it also seems to me that berating a player out of anger probably qualifies as mismanagement.

Other than statistical analysis and speculation on message boards, how does one identify the "magic elixir" that leads to a coaches team being to the right of the line rather than the left? AND, is there a similar analysis for the pro teams?

One lesson is that running an offense that is different than most others may be very wise given Georgia Tech's place in the graph.

The figures kinda put an exclamation point on the experience Kansas had gone through.

One little hesitation we might have to consider is that the success of a recruiting class shows up two years later. If there is no two year lag in the statistics, the result may be misleading.

You betcha!!!!!!

I thought Texas would have been farther to the left in the longer study. Shocking I'd say.

I found this article very, very interesting:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/after-signing-day-wisconsin-makes-the-best-of-its-recruits/

I'm surprised Duke is so far to the left of the line in the seven year study. The seven year study also reflects what some have felt about DONU in the last few years.

Wonder how Rivals knows?

Do we have any idea wither the coaches who pull scholarships based on poor performance make clear to recruits that the possibility exists?

What winner said sounds pretty good to me. And that is without knowing context and non-verbal communications that are extremely important.

Sorry about that. Couldn't resist.

After all this discussion and the WOW of today, It would be nice to be able to figure out how much better this all would have gone had the coaches has some support from the AD and administration. LOL