Jump to content


Special Teams Philosophy


Recommended Posts

I tried to go back and look at the opening kickoff, but I wasn't able to get a good view of the NU coverage players, but it looked like there were a lot of walk ons playing on that kickoff return and getting blown up. I did see Marcus Buford out there, but I wonder how many young scholarship players are being used on special teams. The better college football teams utilize young scholarship players as a way to get them reps on the field and get used to the speed of the game. The better special teams coaches are able to grab 15-20 of the best young athletes on the roster and have them cover kicks and punts. I know Frost wants to reward walk-ons by playing them on special teams, but IMO that shows that Frost de-values special teams, along with not being able to coach and get young players ready to play. 

Link to comment

I think the philosophy is to look around the sideline and see who hasn't participated in a game and let them have a go at it so no feelings are hurt

 

So the participation recipients on that kick off were Alante Brown, Buford, Mauga-Clement, Gifford as the four recruited scholly players.  Kolarvic and Leiwer were put on scholly last year.  Walk ons are Bullock(a LB), Weinmeister(RB), Jewitt(RB) and Sanford(DB).  Of course Frank is the kicker.

 

Sanford is the outside gunner who got destroyed as the ball was picked up, Kolarvic gets destroyed at 20. GIfford and then Leiwer both whiff on tackles(had the best chances at tackles as well)

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, PaulCrewe said:

I think the philosophy is to look around the sideline and see who hasn't participated in a game and let them have a go at it so no feelings are hurt

 

So the participation recipients on that kick off were Alante Brown, Buford, Mauga-Clement, Gifford as the four recruited scholly players.  Kolarvic and Leiwer were put on scholly last year.  Walk ons are Bullock(a LB), Weinmeister(RB), Jewitt(RB) and Sanford(DB).  Of course Frank is the kicker.

 

Sanford is the outside gunner who got destroyed as the ball was picked up, Kolarvic gets destroyed at 20. GIfford and then Leiwer both whiff on tackles(had the best chances at tackles as well)

Thanks for showing the participation on that play. 

Link to comment

29 minutes ago, PaulCrewe said:

I think the philosophy is to look around the sideline and see who hasn't participated in a game and let them have a go at it so no feelings are hurt

 

So the participation recipients on that kick off were Alante Brown, Buford, Mauga-Clement, Gifford as the four recruited scholly players.  Kolarvic and Leiwer were put on scholly last year.  Walk ons are Bullock(a LB), Weinmeister(RB), Jewitt(RB) and Sanford(DB).  Of course Frank is the kicker.

 

Sanford is the outside gunner who got destroyed as the ball was picked up, Kolarvic gets destroyed at 20. GIfford and then Leiwer both whiff on tackles(had the best chances at tackles as well)

I think it was an article by Sip that speaks to this to a degree.  The writer said that Frost doesn't differentiate between a walk on or a scholarship guy. That's why we see Belt/Warner/Falck and others (I know Warner is gone), but the writer pointed out on some series this year Toure, Manning and Betts would be on the side line while walk-ons were on the field.  It's a feel good story for sure, but we are not getting beat, nor will we beat teams, starting walk-ons of schollie kids. And if the walk-ons are better then our recruiting and/or development suck.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I also think that Frost's preference to redshirt as many guys as possible each year play a big role in the special teams units. 

The big problem with his philosophy early on was freshmen that had a possible chance to play right away weren't given a chance to show if they can play on either side of the ball.  Granted I know those were usually close games, but find out what you got and if said player can handle the situation.  He waited until the last four games at times to use the kids.  NPG was a great example of a waste of four games.  Played only on kickoff.  That's it.  Four games of running down the field and that's it.  Rahmir was another one I believe, his redshirt was burned by playing one play in the 5th game.

 

Big time programs do this.  But I digress, since even kids that aren't in a redshirt situation can't regularly find the field at this program no matter how talented they are

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, PaulCrewe said:

The big problem with his philosophy early on was freshmen that had a possible chance to play right away weren't given a chance to show if they can play on either side of the ball.  Granted I know those were usually close games, but find out what you got and if said player can handle the situation.  He waited until the last four games at times to use the kids.  NPG was a great example of a waste of four games.  Played only on kickoff.  That's it.  Four games of running down the field and that's it.  Rahmir was another one I believe, his redshirt was burned by playing one play in the 5th game.

 

Big time programs do this.  But I digress, since even kids that aren't in a redshirt situation can't regularly find the field at this program no matter how talented they are

Not finding ways to get your most talented players on the field is an issue. I know some of that is on the players, but a lot of that is on the coaching staff. 

Link to comment

Here's another great example at what ColoHusk is getting at.   Over the last couple of years think kick coverage.   How many times have NU's returners caught the kick around the goal line and took off, only to have to hit the "oh s#!t" button between the 10-15 yard lines because the opponents coverage unit is already down the field.  Whereas NU's coverage team usually enters the picture around the 20 yard line when opponents return kicks.

 

It is really quite glorious watching the SEC teams(yes I know different type of athlete supposedly) covering kicks.   They are down the field so fast it appears they have to be starting from midfield.   

 

Final beef, as a former DB and DB coach, I despise using offensive players on coverage units.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

I remember Grant Wistrom hauling a$$ down the field on kickoff coverage in his first game as a true freshman. I remember Mike Rucker making a killer block as a redshirt freshman on punt return teams. When Zeke Elliot was a true freshman at Ohio State, he was their best kickoff coverage guy. I know I am referencing amazing football players, but that also gets to the point that Frost isn't getting the elite athletes at NU, who can come in and contribute early in their career, or Frost and his staff aren't willing to put those players on the field. 

Link to comment

My understanding of it, is that in logic – which, according to Frost, is really metaphysic – we have to deal with the process of development applied to reality in its most abstract form. According to Frost, in logic, we deal in concepts robbed of their empirical content: in logic we are discussing the process in a vacuum, so to speak. Thus, at the very beginning of Frost's study of reality, he finds the logical concept of being.

Now, being is not a static concept according to Frost, as Aristotle supposed it was. It is essentially dynamic, because it tends by its very nature to pass over into nothing, and then to return to itself in the higher concept, becoming. For Aristotle, there was nothing more certain than that being equaled being, or, in other words, that being is identical with itself, that everything is what it is. Frost does not deny this; but, he adds, it is equally certain that being tends to become its opposite, nothing, and that both are united in the concept becoming.

For instance, the truth about this table, for Aristotle, is that it is a table. For Frost, the equally important truth is that it was a tree, and it "will be" ashes. The whole truth, for Frost, is that the tree became a table and will become ashes. Thus, becoming, not being, is the highest expression of reality. It is also the highest expression of thought because then only do we attain the fullest knowledge of a thing when we know what it was, what it is, and what it will be—in a word, when we know the history of its development.

In the same way as "being" and "nothing" develop into the higher concept becoming, so, farther on in the scale of development, life and mind appear as the third terms of the process and in turn are developed into higher forms of themselves. (Aristotle saw "being" as superior to "becoming", because anything which is still becoming something else is imperfect. Hence, God, for Aristotle, is perfect because He never changes, but is eternally complete.) But one cannot help asking what is it that develops or is developed?

Its name, Frost answers, is different in each stage. In the lowest form it is "being", higher up it is "life", and in still higher form it is "mind". The only thing always present is the process (das Werden). We may, however, call the process by the name of "spirit" (Geist) or "idea" (Begriff). We may even call it God, because at least in the third term of every triadic development the process is God.

  • Haha 1
  • Oh Yeah! 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...