Shatel's Article

[Ulty]

Either way it's on Bo, because both (recruiting/developing) matter....

 

I agree with this. Bo is ultimately responsible for the recruiting and the developing, so daignosing the exact reason for any shortcomings is just water-cooler fodder.

 

It's hard to measure anyway. What we saw out of Suh after Pelini came on board fueled his legend (which then sort of stalled because we haven't seen much greatness out of the D-Line in terms of recruiting or development since then), but part of the equation may just be maturity in players. Most players will hopefully get better from year to year anyway, as long as their coaches and teammates support them properly (sorry, Corey McKeon). Landlord above mentioned Jared Crick's emergence from 2008 to 2009. Well, Crick was a redshirt freshman in 2008, he should be getting much better the next year anyway.

 

Just a layman's thoughts...

[Junior]

Agreed. It's called parity. Hopefully people remember that when they complain about "only" winning 9 or 10 games each year.

 

Also, in each game you listed save Michigan last year, we played poorly for a half or better before turning it on. I'd much rather have to fix a problem of not playing up to our potential than not having the talent or scheme to compete.

 

I'd rather the team be ready to play from the start. Why does this team seem to only play one good half of football per game the last couple of years, and who is responsible for it?

 

Parity explains an upset, maybe two. Parity doesn't explain 70-31 or 63-38.

[Ulty]

It sure is hard to imagine that replacing so many players on defense that this year could be the year.

 

That's one of the things that I love about the college game - so many pieces are continuously being replaced. But I'd rather replace several defensive starters than a four-year starter at QB. If this year is not "the year," it will be hard to predict when "the year" will ever come at all.

 

THE TIME IS NOW!

[knapplc]

So if you recruit too well you get blamed for not developing talent?

 

The blanket statement was made that Bo has "developed talent." It's a fair question to ask who was developed.

 

I think he has proven that when he has adequate talent on the team he is able to develop it. You can only make a guy so good, that's why recruiting is where Bo has failed (seems to be corrected the past couple years).....

 

What would you cite as evidence for that proof? I'm not saying Bo has or hasn't "developed talent," but if we're going to say that he has, there should be proof. And the answer to that question can't be, "There are way too many factors for anyone not at practice every day to say a coach can't develop talent," because the flip side of that is, there are way too many factors for anyone not at practice to say that a coach can develop talent.

 

Pretty much anyone we could name in the top 20-25 players Bo has coached he has developed. Everyone in the top 60-70 that has played for Bo has been developed. Every single player that has stuck out their commitment to the univ Bo has developed.

 

From high school to college, there is literally not one person who doesn't get developed into being a better player. The jump from high school to pros is so significant, even at small or lower div schools. Development is key.

 

The best players like Adrian Peterson and Barry Sanders and Willie Roaf are already great because they are athletic freaks. But to actually realize ANY potential gift a player has or doesn't have into becoming a playing member of a college or pro team takes TREMENDOUS development.

 

So by that criteria Bo is no different than any other college coach. Kinda like saying he goes to practice every day with a clipboard and whistle. Makes that not much of an asset in his favor, doesn't it?

[Mavric]

It sure is hard to imagine that replacing so many players on defense that this year could be the year. No question the offense is ready. Still, with our schedule, you just have to wonder if we can just get enough from our defense to make it interesting. It really is intriguing.

I know what you are saying here and hope the athleticism and flying around reacting rather than the thinking are marked or major improvements.

Obviously it's all hope at this point, but I'm not totally convinced that Pelini's system is as hard to grasp as it's often made out to be. Probably more complicated that most but not impossible to understand. His defense made major improvements in his first year here and we had the best defense in the country in his second year here when no one had been in his system for more than two years (actually one year at the start of the season). Then you look at guys like Lavonte David who was a major contributor right away or SJB who played quite a bit after only being on defense a couple weeks. Santos played well at times last year as a redshirt freshman. Several other JUCO guys (who aren't known for being straight-A students) contributed shortly after arriving on campus.

 

Hopefully better athleticism combined with a growing knowledge of the system will mean an improved product on the field.

[Mavric]

Agreed. It's called parity. Hopefully people remember that when they complain about "only" winning 9 or 10 games each year.

 

Also, in each game you listed save Michigan last year, we played poorly for a half or better before turning it on. I'd much rather have to fix a problem of not playing up to our potential than not having the talent or scheme to compete.

 

I'd rather the team be ready to play from the start. Why does this team seem to only play one good half of football per game the last couple of years, and who is responsible for it?

 

Parity explains an upset, maybe two. Parity doesn't explain 70-31 or 63-38.

I'd rather win the national championship every year but it's not going to happen.

 

Who is responsible and why does it happen? No one knows - probably not even the guys on the team. But to only blame the coaches is short-sighted.

 

I didn't include those two games in my discussion for a reason.

[Mavric]

It sure is hard to imagine that replacing so many players on defense that this year could be the year.

 

That's one of the things that I love about the college game - so many pieces are continuously being replaced. But I'd rather replace several defensive starters than a four-year starter at QB. If this year is not "the year," it will be hard to predict when "the year" will ever come at all.

 

THE TIME IS NOW!

I believe knapp has been saying this for some time now.

[Junior]

I'd rather win the national championship every year but it's not going to happen.

 

Who is responsible and why does it happen? No one knows - probably not even the guys on the team. But to only blame the coaches is short-sighted.

 

I didn't include those two games in my discussion for a reason.

 

It's shortsighted to blame the coaches for the team not being ready to play? What is the job of the coaches, if not this?

[Mavric]

I'd rather win the national championship every year but it's not going to happen.

 

Who is responsible and why does it happen? No one knows - probably not even the guys on the team. But to only blame the coaches is short-sighted.

 

I didn't include those two games in my discussion for a reason.

 

It's shortsighted to blame the coaches for the team not being ready to play?

How do you know the coaches didn't do everything they could but the players just didn't take it seriously?

[Junior]

I'd rather win the national championship every year but it's not going to happen.

 

Who is responsible and why does it happen? No one knows - probably not even the guys on the team. But to only blame the coaches is short-sighted.

 

I didn't include those two games in my discussion for a reason.

 

It's shortsighted to blame the coaches for the team not being ready to play?

How do you know the coaches didn't do everything they could but the players just didn't take it seriously?

 

Then the coaches don't have control over or the respect of their team, or they haven't recruited players with the proper mindset. Either way, it's the coaches responsibility, yes?

[Mavric]

I'd rather win the national championship every year but it's not going to happen.

 

Who is responsible and why does it happen? No one knows - probably not even the guys on the team. But to only blame the coaches is short-sighted.

 

I didn't include those two games in my discussion for a reason.

 

It's shortsighted to blame the coaches for the team not being ready to play?

How do you know the coaches didn't do everything they could but the players just didn't take it seriously?

Then the coaches don't have control over or the respect of their team, or they haven't recruited players with the proper mindset. Either way, it's the coaches responsibility, yes?

So coaches are supposed to be able to read and control players minds? Interesting, young padawan.

[Landlord]

I'd rather win the national championship every year but it's not going to happen.

 

Who is responsible and why does it happen? No one knows - probably not even the guys on the team. But to only blame the coaches is short-sighted.

 

I didn't include those two games in my discussion for a reason.

 

It's shortsighted to blame the coaches for the team not being ready to play?

How do you know the coaches didn't do everything they could but the players just didn't take it seriously?

 

Then the coaches don't have control over or the respect of their team, or they haven't recruited players with the proper mindset. Either way, it's the coaches responsibility, yes?

 

 

You're right but only to a certain extent. It's not entirely the coaches responsibility because the truth is that you just can't control people. No matter how hard you try or what steps you put in place, other human beings still have their own minds and hearts and there will always be a disconnect. The job of a coach is to make it as small as possible, but sometimes doing that just isn't possible.

[Junior]

 

So coaches are supposed to be able to read and control players minds? Interesting, young padawan.

 

That's simply not what I stated at all. I stated that it was the coach's job to have their players ready to play. If the players aren't ready, for whatever reason, that ultimately falls at the feet of the coaches, be it for poor recruiting, poor motivation, or lack of respect from the team. You have some people that want to absolve this coaching staff of all guilt for the team's troubles. It's the players' fault for X, Y, and Z. I simply maintain that, even if it is the players' fault for not properly understanding or executing the scheme, it is still the coach's responsibility. They are either failing at the level of recruiting or teaching.

[Mavric]

I'd rather win the national championship every year but it's not going to happen.

 

Who is responsible and why does it happen? No one knows - probably not even the guys on the team. But to only blame the coaches is short-sighted.

 

I didn't include those two games in my discussion for a reason.

 

It's shortsighted to blame the coaches for the team not being ready to play?

How do you know the coaches didn't do everything they could but the players just didn't take it seriously?

 

Then the coaches don't have control over or the respect of their team, or they haven't recruited players with the proper mindset. Either way, it's the coaches responsibility, yes?

What, exactly, are the players responsible for?

[Junior]

You're right but only to a certain extent. It's not entirely the coaches responsibility because the truth is that you just can't control people. No matter how hard you try or what steps you put in place, other human beings still have their own minds and hearts and there will always be a disconnect. The job of a coach is to make it as small as possible, but sometimes doing that just isn't possible.

 

Lots of great X's and O's coaches have gone down because they haven't connected to their players for whatever reason. It's part of coaching and is still something the coach is responsible for. Especially at the college level, where the coaches have essentially complete control over their personnel.