Corey Raymond changing too much?

[EZ-E]

Oh, by the way, dont you think it is funny how we are told time and time again that the Big 12 is not as physical as the Big Ten, but then someone who is paid quite well to study and coach football said that there isn't another Big Ten team that plays as physical in the secondary as NU?

[zoogs]

Who was a very good coach now? Ted Gilmore?

[huzkerbob]

Wtf, now I'm confused.

[zoogs]

Sanders was a very good coach. He improved our technique greatly when he got here and coached up several players. Who ever said he wasn't a good technician is way off base. He just stressed a different type of play. And he was also a good recruiter. He had a very strong organizational back ground and was very very skilled at film breakdown.

 

I think all this rhetoric about Raymond being different, in the sense that he is a technician, does a lot of disservice to Sanders, then.

 

I guess Sanders didn't really hit the road much, but nonetheless played a big part in identifying recruits, if that's what you are saying.

 

Both former coaches were very good coaches.

 

This is what I was referring to, huzkerbob. Not sure Gilmore had a very good record here.

[da skers]

Sanders was a very good coach. He improved our technique greatly when he got here and coached up several players. Who ever said he wasn't a good technician is way off base. He just stressed a different type of play. And he was also a good recruiter. He had a very strong organizational back ground and was very very skilled at film breakdown.

 

I think all this rhetoric about Raymond being different, in the sense that he is a technician, does a lot of disservice to Sanders, then.

 

I guess Sanders didn't really hit the road much, but nonetheless played a big part in identifying recruits, if that's what you are saying.

 

Both former coaches were very good coaches.

 

This is what I was referring to, huzkerbob. Not sure Gilmore had a very good record here.

Who said Sanders didn't travel? That would be very incorrect.

 

And looking at only Gilmore's time at Nebraska to determine his ability to coach would be like looking at Sanders experience when he was at North Carolina.

 

Take a body of work as a whole. I'm not saying Ted was the best ever but he has had a good track record. You realize he coached the NCAA all time receptions leader and the Big 10 all time receptions leader throughout his career. He was actually thought of well enough as a recruiting coordinator he was promoted by Bo to Assistant Head Coach. He also could have stayed at NU but that's neither here nor there. For the style of offense that was being run his teachings and focus were exactly what they were supposed to be if you wanted to be successful in it. The WCO is a pro offense designed to "plug" players in to exact routes, with exact timing and that's what he was told to teach. Watson wanted those receiving elements in the offense last year even though he was trying to take it toward a spread option offense. They don't mesh well together

[Danimal]

Sanders was a very good coach. He improved our technique greatly when he got here and coached up several players. Who ever said he wasn't a good technician is way off base. He just stressed a different type of play. And he was also a good recruiter. He had a very strong organizational back ground and was very very skilled at film breakdown.

 

I think all this rhetoric about Raymond being different, in the sense that he is a technician, does a lot of disservice to Sanders, then.

 

I guess Sanders didn't really hit the road much, but nonetheless played a big part in identifying recruits, if that's what you are saying.

 

Both former coaches were very good coaches.

 

This is what I was referring to, huzkerbob. Not sure Gilmore had a very good record here.

Who said Sanders didn't travel? That would be very incorrect.

 

And looking at only Gilmore's time at Nebraska to determine his ability to coach would be like looking at Sanders experience when he was at North Carolina.

 

Take a body of work as a whole. I'm not saying Ted was the best ever but he has had a good track record. You realize he coached the NCAA all time receptions leader and the Big 10 all time receptions leader throughout his career. He was actually thought of well enough as a recruiting coordinator he was promoted by Bo to Assistant Head Coach. He also could have stayed at NU but that's neither here nor there. For the style of offense that was being run his teachings and focus were exactly what they were supposed to be if you wanted to be successful in it. The WCO is a pro offense designed to "plug" players in to exact routes, with exact timing and that's what he was told to teach. Watson wanted those receiving elements in the offense last year even though he was trying to take it toward a spread option offense. They don't mesh well together

 

It does say something about Gilmore's overall rep that he was able to rebound to a job like USC.

 

Always thought the WCO-passing slapped-on to a spread-option O was a bad mix. I remember last year Watson mentioning the mix and how nobody else did it, I'd say there is a reason for that. Look forward to seeing an O with a less fragmented vision this year.

[zoogs]

It's the kind of thing where if you pull it off, you look like a total genius. If you don't...well, it's what happened.

 

With respect to Gilmore though, I'm not too concerned with what he did elsewhere. It's what he did, or didn't, here that we will remember him by.

[da skers]

It's the kind of thing where if you pull it off, you look like a total genius. If you don't...well, it's what happened.

 

With respect to Gilmore though, I'm not too concerned with what he did elsewhere. It's what he did, or didn't, here that we will remember him by.

And that's fine to have that opinion. I'm not saying he the worlds best receivers coach, but I'm saying you don't really have a perception of reality if you don't look at a person's whole career. You obviously don't know all the circumstances in his time here either.

[zoogs]

Interested in your take on Watson, da skers.

[da skers]

Interested in your take on Watson, da skers.

Nice guy, very good fundamentals guy with the QB's. He's very well respected as a QB coach and thats where he should be. He has a good offense, that he understands very well but its doesn't really have a home. Its probably more of a pro-set up than a college but at the same time isn't developed enough for the pro game. The offense like any WCO is built on timing and techniques so you can plug players into it and if they can master X, Y , Z then it all moves right. That works in the pros where the concepts are the same from team to team more often than not, but it doesn't work trying to take kids from HS where they ran simple offenses and come to college and need to learn technique, mechanics and a system built on exactness. When it was the most effective guys had been running in it or something similar for 4 years. Hes not very imaginative as a play caller and has no idea how to "feel" his way through a game. Part of that is because he teaches plays and not concepts. If something isn't working instead of examining the defense to see whats going on and how to exploit it he moves to the next play and hopes it works.

 

He would probably make a better head coach than an OC in all honesty.

[EZ-E]

Interested in your take on Watson, da skers.

Nice guy, very good fundamentals guy with the QB's. He's very well respected as a QB coach and thats where he should be. He has a good offense, that he understands very well but its doesn't really have a home. Its probably more of a pro-set up than a college but at the same time isn't developed enough for the pro game. The offense like any WCO is built on timing and techniques so you can plug players into it and if they can master X, Y , Z then it all moves right. That works in the pros where the concepts are the same from team to team more often than not, but it doesn't work trying to take kids from HS where they ran simple offenses and come to college and need to learn technique, mechanics and a system built on exactness. When it was the most effective guys had been running in it or something similar for 4 years. Hes not very imaginative as a play caller and has no idea how to "feel" his way through a game. Part of that is because he teaches plays and not concepts. If something isn't working instead of examining the defense to see whats going on and how to exploit it he moves to the next play and hopes it works.

 

He would probably make a better head coach than an OC in all honesty.

 

This just reminded me of this quote:

 

I don't throw darts at a board. I bet on sure things. Read Sun-tzu, The Art of War. Every battle is won before it is ever fought.

 

Name the movie the above quote is from.

[The Dude]

Haha I just watched that flick.

[Danimal]

Interested in your take on Watson, da skers.

Nice guy, very good fundamentals guy with the QB's. He's very well respected as a QB coach and thats where he should be. He has a good offense, that he understands very well but its doesn't really have a home. Its probably more of a pro-set up than a college but at the same time isn't developed enough for the pro game. The offense like any WCO is built on timing and techniques so you can plug players into it and if they can master X, Y , Z then it all moves right. That works in the pros where the concepts are the same from team to team more often than not, but it doesn't work trying to take kids from HS where they ran simple offenses and come to college and need to learn technique, mechanics and a system built on exactness. When it was the most effective guys had been running in it or something similar for 4 years. Hes not very imaginative as a play caller and has no idea how to "feel" his way through a game. Part of that is because he teaches plays and not concepts. If something isn't working instead of examining the defense to see whats going on and how to exploit it he moves to the next play and hopes it works.

 

He would probably make a better head coach than an OC in all honesty.

 

Thanks for the input.

 

Really goes with what we saw the last three seasons. Also explains why we read so much about how now guys are learning philosopy/concepts and running the offense, not just plays.

[zoogs]

Should be a good change.

[bshirt]

As long as there's a Pelini in charge, we'll be fine. Man we are SERIOUSLY getting desperate for talking points.

 

 

agreed bo is like the bofather... he gives the orders and the guys fit their style based on what he wants... he would let CR or have hired CR f#*k up his D.....

Plus in the past Bo pulled rank on Sander too. He always favored West and Bo told him to play Denard and Prince. And last year 1/2 through he made Sanders play Cassidy and Osborne when the other guys weren't getting it done but Sanders wanted them to stick with other guys. If he see something he doesn't like or someone in who shouldn't be he's going to let it be known. Sanders got a lot of credit for personnel decisions Bo made. That was actually Sanders weakness as a DC and as a position coach. He had a hard time putting the right players in after he found a favorite.

 

 

Very interesting and a good read. Thanks da skers.