Uncle Milt on Rotate-gate

[TheSker]

Well, as Mav pointed out, the system was less than successful. We decided to throw the ball with a QB that doesn't fit his strengths, and the coaches have the audacity to complain about a lack of consistency in the running game as a reason they didn't go to it as often during the season.

They were supposed to run a system that fit the teams strengths early into their tenure, mold what they wanted to do based off what we have. Some evidence suggests they were pounding square pegs into round holes.

When it didn't happen, the term "transition year" showed up.

 

[Redux]

When it didn't happen, the term "transition year" showed up.

Yeah, wish we woulda hired another 1st time head coach instead of Riley so we could have spent ANOTHER 7 years getting friggin nowhere! Thanks for opening our eyes, you da real MVP!

 

[Mavric]

So now we are upset that the guys playing are the ones that fit the coach's system not the one we want them to run.

Makes perfect sense.

Well, the coaches' system led the nation in interceptions, was a big part of having a 6-7 record and was admitted by the coaches that they probably should have been doing things differently during the year.

So ..... yeah.

You are really reaching on this one...

Stumpy, before people jump down your throat, I think you should specify why you disagree.

Mavric is now trying to turn an argument about how many oline players should rotated that has somehow shifted to an argument about which players were truly the best 5 last year into an argument about whether the offensive system is the right fit. This trail of weird tangents is pretty funny to watch.

That is the heart of the argument. It seems pretty obvious that most of the reason why certain players played over others - both on the offensive line and in the backfield - was because they were better pass blockers. Several players have said that themselves. It's pretty obvious that the coaches favored players who were better pass blockers.

Actually, you're the one trying to shift the argument. We weren't discussing is the offensive system is the right fit. We were discussing which players fit the system. There's a difference.

I haven't shifted anything, the argument was about 1) why the staff doesn't rotate more on the o-line and now 2) which 5 should have been playing and why certain players were playing over others. Somehow the 2nd was the immediate go to once Milt blew up the argument on 1. Your the one that made a statement about the offensive system being the wrong system due to the high number on INTs and that the coaches know they need to modify it going forward.

Wrong. Go read the thread again.

The question was posed wondering if we were really playing the best 5 guys. I agreed, saying I think the coaches were intent on playing the best five pass blockers, not necessarily the best five lineman overall and noted that the backups seemed to play as well or better than the starters when given a chance later in the season. It was In the Deed the Glory and you who brought up using a different system.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

You have to admire milt; he's consistently bolstered every coach, especially every OL coach, since he retired, including heaping praise on Callahan

[SIZE=medium]Milt isn’t the only coach to give Billy C praises for his OL coaching abilities. Pretty sure he is regarded as one of the top one’s in the business. I could be misremembering that though.[/SIZE]

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

You have to admire milt; he's consistently bolstered every coach, especially every OL coach, since he retired, including heaping praise on Callahan

Milt isnt the only coach to give Billy C praises for his OL coaching abilities. Pretty sure he is regarded as one of the top ones in the business. I could be misremembering that though.

Correct Callahan is regarded as one of the absolute best OL coaches in the NFL.

 

[Saunders]

Right tackle Zach Wiegert, left guard Joel Wilks and right guard Brendan Stai played the entire game without substitution, but rotations at center and left tackle meant the starting line up only played 10 of the 14 Husker drives against Miami in the 1995 Orange Bowl.

 

[The Dude]

And on those other 4 drives there were still 4 starters in on nearly every play. So it would be more accurate for him to have said they barely substituted in that game. Definitely splitting hairs here. He was mostly right.

His bigger point still stands. There's not any dramatic difference in how he did it compared to Cav.

 

[commando]

so milt is a liar and our current coaches suck because we substituted a couple players for a couple plays against miami in 1995?

 

[cm husker]

And on those other 4 drives there were still 4 starters in on nearly every play. So it would be more accurate for him to have said they barely substituted in that game. Definitely splitting hairs here. He was mostly right.

His bigger point still stands. There's not any dramatic difference in how he did it compared to Cav.

Then there's no difference between what they do and what people want them to do.

Because most of us don't think it should be a hockey style line shift. Just that you want to get guys in on a rotational basis if they've demonstrated the ability to compete during practice.

Now, if Cav believed he only had 5 competitive players, that's a different situation. I would have a hard time believing that assessment.

 

[Enhance]

And on those other 4 drives there were still 4 starters in on nearly every play. So it would be more accurate for him to have said they barely substituted in that game. Definitely splitting hairs here. He was mostly right.

His bigger point still stands. There's not any dramatic difference in how he did it compared to Cav.

Seems like far much more fun to ignore this and argue for the sake of arguing, though.

 

[Saunders]

And on those other 4 drives there were still 4 starters in on nearly every play. So it would be more accurate for him to have said they barely substituted in that game. Definitely splitting hairs here. He was mostly right.

His bigger point still stands. There's not any dramatic difference in how he did it compared to Cav.

Yeah, just posting what CN wrote.

 

[Enhance]

And on those other 4 drives there were still 4 starters in on nearly every play. So it would be more accurate for him to have said they barely substituted in that game. Definitely splitting hairs here. He was mostly right.

His bigger point still stands. There's not any dramatic difference in how he did it compared to Cav.

Because most of us don't think it should be a hockey style line shift. Just that you want to get guys in on a rotational basis if they've demonstrated the ability to compete during practice.

The concern I have is when we start getting into the gray area of making personnel assessments while not having all the facts. Cav and the staff have to weigh a plethora of factors to determine who plays and who doesn't.

That's the obvious part, but the difficult part is knowing who gives you the best chance to win. Many games last year were incredibly close, and as a general rule of thumb, the really close games often see less player substitutions. If Cav genuinely felt the core group of guys gave us the best chance to win, alongside minimal substitution, then I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[cm husker]

I agree, Enhance, and generally, I have not gone after Cav's decisions this past season. My bigger concern is that he stated that his policy is to not substitute, regardless of the abilities of a back up. He has said that and compared his approach to the NFL which truly does not rotate.

So while I won't second guess his decisions about who should start, I do have doubts about that sort of policy.

I would simply say too that it's ok to second guess some of these decisions. Like him or not, Cav has a very thin resume in terms of running successful OLs and being part of successful offenses. Not that there's nothing there, but more like he's still in "prove it" territory.

 

[caveman99]

Mavric is now trying to turn an argument about how many oline players should rotated that has somehow shifted to an argument about which players were truly the best 5 last year into an argument about whether the offensive system is the right fit. This trail of weird tangents is pretty funny to watch.

That is the heart of the argument. It seems pretty obvious that most of the reason why certain players played over others - both on the offensive line and in the backfield - was because they were better pass blockers. Several players have said that themselves. It's pretty obvious that the coaches favored players who were better pass blockers.

Actually, you're the one trying to shift the argument. We weren't discussing is the offensive system is the right fit. We were discussing which players fit the system. There's a difference.

I haven't shifted anything, the argument was about 1) why the staff doesn't rotate more on the o-line and now 2) which 5 should have been playing and why certain players were playing over others. Somehow the 2nd was the immediate go to once Milt blew up the argument on 1. Your the one that made a statement about the offensive system being the wrong system due to the high number on INTs and that the coaches know they need to modify it going forward.

Wrong. Go read the thread again.

The question was posed wondering if we were really playing the best 5 guys. I agreed, saying I think the coaches were intent on playing the best five pass blockers, not necessarily the best five lineman overall and noted that the backups seemed to play as well or better than the starters when given a chance later in the season. It was In the Deed the Glory and you who brought up using a different system.

Just because you took the time to reply I went and reread the entire thread again and my assessment still stands. Yes you had a post or two about why certain players were playing over others, but Colorado Husk and yourself turned it into an argument about whether Langs's system is the right fit. Here is a quick synopsis:

The initial post was the story about Milt addressing the fan argument that Cav should have substituted more last year because that is what was done in the glory years. Rotate linemen while the game was still in the balance to get backups ready to play, Milt's interview pretty much blasted this one away.

The real question IMO is are we starting our actual best 5? The main reason I wanted some rotation last year is b/c I thought there were guys not getting a chance to play that were better than what was on the field.

The argument then shifted to whether or not Cav played the "BEST" starting 5 linemen.

The real question IMO is are we starting our actual best 5? The main reason I wanted some rotation last year is b/c I thought there were guys not getting a chance to play that were better than what was on the field.

This. Last year we were told that there was a noticeable gap between the starters and the second string. Yet when those backups got a chance to play later in the year, they played just as well or better.

I think the actual reason was much closer to "the starters can pass block better."

Gerald Foster was one player who many thought was a dominant run blocker during practice, but because he wasn't the best pass blocker he didn't start. I understand needing to do "all aspects of the job", but this is where Riley's/Langsdorf's/Cav's focus on the pass game gets in the way of a successful run game.

The second conversation about the "best" 5 players continued into more about why they didn't play as a result of the Coaches's philosophy of playing the 5 linemen that could run their system the best as opposed to whom the fans think should be starting instead. Colorado Husk makes the first post in a shift to a 3rd argument about whether or not the Offensive system is the right system, with a nod to the "run the ball!" cry that has been popular since the middle part of last season.

So now we are upset that the guys playing are the ones that fit the coach's system not the one we want them to run.

Makes perfect sense.

Well, the coaches' system led the nation in interceptions, was a big part of having a 6-7 record and was admitted by the coaches that they probably should have been doing things differently during the year.

So ..... yeah.

Deed points out how far the argument has shifted from why the lack of rotation to posters complaining about which starting 5 were playing and finally to complaining about the system being run. Then you have a post that continues on the theme that Colorado Husk started by blasting the offensive system.

So now we are upset that the guys playing are the ones that fit the coach's system not the one we want them to run.

Makes perfect sense.

Well, the coaches' system led the nation in interceptions, was a big part of having a 6-7 record and was admitted by the coaches that they probably should have been doing things differently during the year.

So ..... yeah.

You are really reaching on this one...

Stumpy, before people jump down your throat, I think you should specify why you disagree.

Mavric is now trying to turn an argument about how many oline players should rotated that has somehow shifted to an argument about which players were truly the best 5 last year into an argument about whether the offensive system is the right fit. This trail of weird tangents is pretty funny to watch.

I simply point out where you, and also Colorado Husk, have taken this topic to a 3rd topic derailment. The thread started on the topic of the lack of o-line rotation, then it went to which 5 o-linemen should be playing, and finally to complaining about the system being played. The last 2 topics have a connection since the primary reason the 5 starting o-linemen were chosen was because of system fit, but yourself and Colorado Husk took the argument a step farther to complain about the system and not just which o-linemen should be in the starting 5. I am not sure how you can claim that In the Deed and myself shifted the argument since both of us simply commented on the changing narrative, but I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[Enhance]

I agree, Enhance, and generally, I have not gone after Cav's decisions this past season. My bigger concern is that he stated that his policy is to not substitute, regardless of the abilities of a back up. He has said that and compared his approach to the NFL which truly does not rotate.

So while I won't second guess his decisions about who should start, I do have doubts about that sort of policy.

I would simply say too that it's ok to second guess some of these decisions. Like him or not, Cav has a very thin resume in terms of running successful OLs and being part of successful offenses. Not that there's nothing there, but more like he's still in "prove it" territory.

I can agree with most of that, too, particularly the 'prove it' part. I think it's always fair to question a coaching decision.

I think what I would advocate for is people being more open to his approach, whether they completely agree with it or not. We've been having this discussion around here for a long time dating back to last year, and as of right now, there's little reason to suggest his method is ineffective. Much of the angst towards it comes from people who have philosophical differences.

I also think there are some fans out there who don't know any better. They hear the words "depth" and "rotation" and believe them to be generally positive concepts, and though they are, some people appear to be operating under the impression that there is only one way to go about achieving them. I think that's naive, personally. So, do we all want to continue having the same conversation or give Cav time to do it his way? If it works, great, and if it doesn't, we all know what would happen eventually.