Spring Quarterback Competition

[Mavric]

Supposedly Fyfe and Stanton got the run with the ones with TA out.

 

Not sure how they have it divided now but Stanton has been working in the same group with TA most of the time. Fyfe had been in the other group in the split practices.

[True2tRA]

So our QBs need to complete a higher percentage, throw fewer INTs, make better decisions and read defenses better.

 

Other than that, we're golden.

Kind of what I was thinking.

 

How many position groups are basically erasing everything and re-learning it all though? Probably every one of them.

I truly don't believe in much the former staff was doing.

 

The DB's are in an entirely different world.

 

The offensive line is starting ALL OVER again.

 

The WR's are being taught route running and no longer making certain reads, but running designed plays. (there's always reads associated with WR but not to the extent Beck had them making).

 

Running backs are all lacking experience and have already said they are being taught more technically about the position.

 

The defensive line is no longer running in a two gap - read and react trash scheme, they are single gap attacking.

 

Linebackers aren't spilling or levering, they are gang tackling and hitting holes. Avoiding contact, not seeking it. Avoiding blocks, not absorbing them.

 

These guys are all starting from scratch really. When you look at the upgrade from Beck at QB coach, to Langsdorf (who was working with Eli Manning last year) I'm not surprised the QB's are being taught more and being held to a lot higher standard.

[Landlord]

 

So our QBs need to complete a higher percentage, throw fewer INTs, make better decisions and read defenses better.

 

Other than that, we're golden.

Kind of what I was thinking.

 

How many position groups are basically erasing everything and re-learning it all though? Probably every one of them.

I truly don't believe in much the former staff was doing.

 

 

 

 

All of them, but let's be honest. In today's day and age of college football, the good players are just able to play period. Our last two heisman winners were freshmen, as example. More and more schemes are being simplified down into, essentially, drawing lines in the sand kind of playground ball, and players are thriving in them.

[Mavric]

Supposedly Fyfe and Stanton got the run with the ones with TA out.

 

Not sure how they have it divided now but Stanton has been working in the same group with TA most of the time. Fyfe had been in the other group in the split practices.

 

Follow-up: it does sound like they are still mainly working in the two groups, even when both practicing at the same time. Fyfe was moved from the white group to the red group. Presumably, that would be ahead of Bush although it could still be more of a seniority move than anything.

[Mavric]

Riley was non-committal but apparently Langsdorf basically said they have a pretty good idea who their top three are (they said before practices started they wanted to get down to three) but they're not saying anything yet. Doesn't sound like they said anything to the team either.

[True2tRA]

 

 

So our QBs need to complete a higher percentage, throw fewer INTs, make better decisions and read defenses better.

 

Other than that, we're golden.

 

Kind of what I was thinking.

How many position groups are basically erasing everything and re-learning it all though? Probably every one of them.

I truly don't believe in much the former staff was doing.

 

 

All of them, but let's be honest. In today's day and age of college football, the good players are just able to play period. Our last two heisman winners were freshmen, as example. More and more schemes are being simplified down into, essentially, drawing lines in the sand kind of playground ball, and players are thriving in them.

The last staff literally contradicts almost every word of what you just wrote. The best players weren't always able to get on the field. Their schemes weren't being simplified, at all. Matter of fact, we tried to do a little bit of everything.

 

Also, those two freshman Heisman winners are pretty special players.

 

I see what you're trying to say, but this statement of yours really devalues teaching and player development. You being a Stanton fan, I'd say you'd hope he proves your theory of "good players play" wrong considering he has been evaluated by two staffs now.

 

Different players fit different systems. A guy that may have played under Pelini may not play for Banker or Langsdorf. This is why recruiting is important, evaluating is important, and coaching changes are a big deal.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

So our QBs need to complete a higher percentage, throw fewer INTs, make better decisions and read defenses better.

 

Other than that, we're golden.

Kind of what I was thinking.

How many position groups are basically erasing everything and re-learning it all though? Probably every one of them.

I truly don't believe in much the former staff was doing.

 

 

All of them, but let's be honest. In today's day and age of college football, the good players are just able to play period. Our last two heisman winners were freshmen, as example. More and more schemes are being simplified down into, essentially, drawing lines in the sand kind of playground ball, and players are thriving in them.

The last staff literally contradicts almost every word of what you just wrote. The best players weren't always able to get on the field. Their schemes weren't being simplified, at all. Matter of fact, we tried to do a little bit of everything.

 

Also, those two freshman Heisman winners are pretty special players.

 

I see what you're trying to say, but this statement of yours really devalues teaching and player development. You being a Stanton fan, I'd say you'd hope he proves your theory of "good players play" wrong considering he has been evaluated by two staffs now.

 

Different players fit different systems. A guy that may have played under Pelini may or play for Banker or Langsdorf. This is why recruiting is important, evaluating is important, and coaching changes are a big deal.

 

 

 

The last staff didn't do a good job, and a big part of that, according to the perspective of many, is that they tried too hard to coach the players up. How many times would we see someone make a really nice, natural, athletic play, and never see the field again?

 

Obviously not everyone fits in every scenario. My point is, in 2015, and seeing the success of teams like Auburn and Oregon and Baylor and others with these very simplified but deadly offenses, I'm a tiny bit wary of any kind of system that necessitates a lot of coaching up. In the same way that different players fit different systems, different systems fit different eras. I'm hoping Riley and co.'s can still fit today.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

So our QBs need to complete a higher percentage, throw fewer INTs, make better decisions and read defenses better.

 

Other than that, we're golden.

Kind of what I was thinking.

 

How many position groups are basically erasing everything and re-learning it all though? Probably every one of them.

I truly don't believe in much the former staff was doing.

 

 

 

All of them, but let's be honest. In today's day and age of college football, the good players are just able to play period. Our last two heisman winners were freshmen, as example. More and more schemes are being simplified down into, essentially, drawing lines in the sand kind of playground ball, and players are thriving in them.

That's a pretty pathetic sign of college football.

[True2tRA]

I'm actually hoping this new offensive system will be far simpler than the last. I guess I've been led to believe it would be.

 

Will we really ever know?

 

I mean, if these guys are great coaches, then an even more difficult scheme could end up looking very simple and basic all because the players execute it at a high level.

 

Maybe Becks system wasn't overly complicated, they just couldn't coach it worth a damn.

 

I truly don't know. Maybe they find a balance of both. By that I mean the coaches simplifying the system to ensure the players make it look simple. It sounds to me like this is the new staffs approach right from the get go. Get good at a few things instead of average or horrible at many things. Now this staff knows this coming in.......the last staff took about six or seven years to figure that part out, and even at the end it came to light that they never truly did it.

[Hunter94]

I'm actually hoping this new offensive system will be far simpler than the last. I guess I've been led to believe it would be.

 

Will we really ever know?

 

I mean, if these guys are great coaches, then an even more difficult scheme could end up looking very simple and basic all because the players execute it at a high level.

 

Maybe Becks system wasn't overly complicated, they just couldn't coach it worth a damn.

 

I truly don't know. Maybe they find a balance of both. By that I mean the coaches simplifying the system to ensure the players make it look simple. It sounds to me like this is the new staffs approach right from the get go. Get good at a few things instead of average or horrible at many things. Now this staff knows this coming in.......the last staff took about six or seven years to figure that part out, and even at the end it came to light that they never truly did it.

one thing for sure.......it's going to be interesting this fall......for me, a few losses won't be so bad, as long as we see steady improvement and a winning streak of some sort at the end of the season....that's all i ask.....steady, measured improvement, something to build on for next season.

[True2tRA]

 

I'm actually hoping this new offensive system will be far simpler than the last. I guess I've been led to believe it would be.

Will we really ever know?

I mean, if these guys are great coaches, then an even more difficult scheme could end up looking very simple and basic all because the players execute it at a high level.

Maybe Becks system wasn't overly complicated, they just couldn't coach it worth a damn.

I truly don't know. Maybe they find a balance of both. By that I mean the coaches simplifying the system to ensure the players make it look simple. It sounds to me like this is the new staffs approach right from the get go. Get good at a few things instead of average or horrible at many things. Now this staff knows this coming in.......the last staff took about six or seven years to figure that part out, and even at the end it came to light that they never truly did it.

 

one thing for sure.......it's going to be interesting this fall......for me, a few losses won't be so bad, as long as we see steady improvement and a winning streak of some sort at the end of the season....that's all i ask.....steady, measured improvement, something to build on for next season.

Completely agree.

 

IMPROVEMENT. That's the key word.

 

I can't remember a time in the last seven years where I said " this team at the end of the year looks like a much better team than when they began the year". Pelini's team never got better throughout the season. The things that plagued them from day one, plagued them all year.

 

Win or lose, when it's all said and done you have to ask yourself, did this team get better? The answer should always be yes.

[strigori]

I'm actually hoping this new offensive system will be far simpler than the last. I guess I've been led to believe it would be.

 

Will we really ever know?

 

I mean, if these guys are great coaches, then an even more difficult scheme could end up looking very simple and basic all because the players execute it at a high level.

 

Maybe Becks system wasn't overly complicated, they just couldn't coach it worth a damn.

 

I truly don't know. Maybe they find a balance of both. By that I mean the coaches simplifying the system to ensure the players make it look simple. It sounds to me like this is the new staffs approach right from the get go. Get good at a few things instead of average or horrible at many things. Now this staff knows this coming in.......the last staff took about six or seven years to figure that part out, and even at the end it came to light that they never truly did it.

I don't know as 'simpler' would be the right thing for the offense. But it certainly is different. Parts of Beck's tended to fall almost into backyard football, like the very loose WR routes. Where we might get simpler is from it being an actual coherent scheme. Beck had a tendency to add a bit of everything in, and not have much in the way of bread and butter plays. He seemed to see a play he liked somewhere, and just add it in, regardless if it really fit or had any ties to the rest of the offense. I think this offense is going to be more technique focused, and certainly will ask a bit more from the QB from a decision making standpoint. But it won't need a record setting RB and a freak athlete at QB to function.

[Mavric]

 

I'm actually hoping this new offensive system will be far simpler than the last. I guess I've been led to believe it would be.

 

Will we really ever know?

 

I mean, if these guys are great coaches, then an even more difficult scheme could end up looking very simple and basic all because the players execute it at a high level.

 

Maybe Becks system wasn't overly complicated, they just couldn't coach it worth a damn.

 

I truly don't know. Maybe they find a balance of both. By that I mean the coaches simplifying the system to ensure the players make it look simple. It sounds to me like this is the new staffs approach right from the get go. Get good at a few things instead of average or horrible at many things. Now this staff knows this coming in.......the last staff took about six or seven years to figure that part out, and even at the end it came to light that they never truly did it.

I don't know as 'simpler' would be the right thing for the offense. But it certainly is different. Parts of Beck's tended to fall almost into backyard football, like the very loose WR routes. Where we might get simpler is from it being an actual coherent scheme. Beck had a tendency to add a bit of everything in, and not have much in the way of bread and butter plays. He seemed to see a play he liked somewhere, and just add it in, regardless if it really fit or had any ties to the rest of the offense. I think this offense is going to be more technique focused, and certainly will ask a bit more from the QB from a decision making standpoint. But it won't need a record setting RB and a freak athlete at QB to function.

 

 

Probably - as should be expected - some things will be better and probably some won't. You mentioned "loose WR routes" which I assume is a reference to the option routes Beck used. Not having those should help reduce mis-communications. But TA said today that they used to run routes at a certain yardage - 5 yards, 10 yards, etc. Now they run (it sounds like) more on a certain number of steps. So one guy might run a curl route at 5 yards while another might run it at eight yards; just depends on the receiver. So we're kind of trading one type of "loose" for another. We'll see I guess.

[zoogs]

So our QBs need to complete a higher percentage, throw fewer INTs, make better decisions and read defenses better.

 

Other than that, we're golden.

Yeah, sounds like a long road ahead.

 

The good news is, we've a decent number of young bodies.

 

They're inexperienced, but more experience within a "Running Backs Who Throw" mindset probably was not going to have done them much good.

[strigori]

 

 

I'm actually hoping this new offensive system will be far simpler than the last. I guess I've been led to believe it would be.

 

Will we really ever know?

 

I mean, if these guys are great coaches, then an even more difficult scheme could end up looking very simple and basic all because the players execute it at a high level.

 

Maybe Becks system wasn't overly complicated, they just couldn't coach it worth a damn.

 

I truly don't know. Maybe they find a balance of both. By that I mean the coaches simplifying the system to ensure the players make it look simple. It sounds to me like this is the new staffs approach right from the get go. Get good at a few things instead of average or horrible at many things. Now this staff knows this coming in.......the last staff took about six or seven years to figure that part out, and even at the end it came to light that they never truly did it.

I don't know as 'simpler' would be the right thing for the offense. But it certainly is different. Parts of Beck's tended to fall almost into backyard football, like the very loose WR routes. Where we might get simpler is from it being an actual coherent scheme. Beck had a tendency to add a bit of everything in, and not have much in the way of bread and butter plays. He seemed to see a play he liked somewhere, and just add it in, regardless if it really fit or had any ties to the rest of the offense. I think this offense is going to be more technique focused, and certainly will ask a bit more from the QB from a decision making standpoint. But it won't need a record setting RB and a freak athlete at QB to function.

 

 

Probably - as should be expected - some things will be better and probably some won't. You mentioned "loose WR routes" which I assume is a reference to the option routes Beck used. Not having those should help reduce mis-communications. But TA said today that they used to run routes at a certain yardage - 5 yards, 10 yards, etc. Now they run (it sounds like) more on a certain number of steps. So one guy might run a curl route at 5 yards while another might run it at eight yards; just depends on the receiver. So we're kind of trading one type of "loose" for another. We'll see I guess.

 

Beck's statements to routes were to the effect of "go where the defenders are not" Riley's system will look more like NFL. And by the player accounts, the WR are much more technique focused. Or Williams statement in practice to one of the players "The good news is that was a great route, the bad news is it was the wrong route." Which, like you mentioned, will hopefully make for less misscommunications between the WR and QB, something we saw far, far too much of the last few years.