Where's Wilbon? Here's where...

[BigRedBuster]

I've seen enough with the play on the field THIS SEASON from some of the players you guys love who just aren't that good. Plain and simple.

High school stats and film are insufficient reasons to suggest one player should play over another in any circumstance. You prove you deserve a shot in practice and that't it. If you can't prove it there then you have no reason being on the field.

You obviously don't see what is bolded.

And, how has Taylor looked in practice THIS SEASON?

The only one who had a rushing TD in the spring game, looked pretty good there. Also practices just fine. Game wise....I can't say since he has 0 carries.

So.....you have been to all the practices to evaluate the RBs?

No sir I haven't...Based on your evaluation you think Newby has deserved 70% of the RB carries? That is more so my concern....

I'm not claiming anything. I do know that very knowledgable people who DO see him in practice every day and know how he has come through the two injuries and if those injuries have affected him believe he isn't ready to play on Saturday for whatever reason.

You are the one who is claiming to know differently so I'm simply asking for how you get your expert knowledge on the subject of how Adam Taylor is doing. You say he "practices just fine." How do you know that?

 

[Enhance]

I've seen enough with the play on the field THIS SEASON from some of the players you guys love who just aren't that good. Plain and simple.

High school stats and film are insufficient reasons to suggest one player should play over another in any circumstance. You prove you deserve a shot in practice and that't it. If you can't prove it there then you have no reason being on the field.

You obviously don't see what is bolded.

I was responding to your comment about watching HS film to justify a player's value. The second they got on campus the value of HS film is greatly diminished - it comes down to what you can do in practice. So, if a guy like Freedom or any of the running backs have great HS film, it doesn't matter at this point. If you don't prove it in practice you don't deserve to see the field.

Plain and simple.

 

[BIG ERN]

I've seen enough with the play on the field THIS SEASON from some of the players you guys love who just aren't that good. Plain and simple.

High school stats and film are insufficient reasons to suggest one player should play over another in any circumstance. You prove you deserve a shot in practice and that't it. If you can't prove it there then you have no reason being on the field.

You obviously don't see what is bolded.

I was responding to your comment about watching HS film to justify a player's value. The second they got on campus the value of HS film is greatly diminished - it comes down to what you can do in practice. So, if a guy like Freedom or any of the running backs have great HS film, it doesn't matter at this point. If you don't prove it in practice you don't deserve to see the field.

Plain and simple.

I didn't base it all off HS film. I am basing it off of who plays now isn't good enough to deserve all these carries. Ah yes, the famous 'practice player' approach.

Game results > practice results....neither of us can technically be correct if someone doesn't get any touches.

Every coach starts/plays the correct player all the time? Now that's a new one - We've already seen that be wrong 3x in 4 games.

 

[Enhance]

I've seen enough with the play on the field THIS SEASON from some of the players you guys love who just aren't that good. Plain and simple.

High school stats and film are insufficient reasons to suggest one player should play over another in any circumstance. You prove you deserve a shot in practice and that't it. If you can't prove it there then you have no reason being on the field.

You obviously don't see what is bolded.

I was responding to your comment about watching HS film to justify a player's value. The second they got on campus the value of HS film is greatly diminished - it comes down to what you can do in practice. So, if a guy like Freedom or any of the running backs have great HS film, it doesn't matter at this point. If you don't prove it in practice you don't deserve to see the field.

Plain and simple.

I didn't base it all off HS film. I am basing it off of who plays now isn't good enough to deserve all these carries. Ah yes, the famous 'practice player' approach.

Game results > practice results....neither of us can technically be correct if someone doesn't get any touches.

Every coach starts/plays the correct player all the time? Now that's a new one - We've already seen that be wrong 3x in 4 games.

Game results do matter over practice results. However, one of the biggest points of practice as a football coach is to figure out what players do well and what they don't do well. You then use that performance to justify playing time. For example, if Imani Cross drops passes out of the backfield, which he did a lot in practice this Fall, why would you then try to throw him passes in a game? It's illogical. Now, if player A isn't performing well in games, but player B hasn't shown much in practice, it puts you in an obviously challenging position. That's when a coach has to weigh the product on the field vs. the potential of a back-up. Clearly, for whatever reason, the coaches haven't had much faith in some of the back-ups, and they see a hell of a lot more than we do.

That's why, in the vast majority of cases, the best players at a given position are on the field. If a player isn't seeing the field then there are likely very good reasons for it in most cases.

Don't create a straw man argument to try and sound witty, either. There's enough of that on this board and I never said coaches always starts the correct player. The fact that I'm having to justify this right now is idiotic and quite honestly beneath you.

 

[BIG ERN]

I've seen enough with the play on the field THIS SEASON from some of the players you guys love who just aren't that good. Plain and simple.

High school stats and film are insufficient reasons to suggest one player should play over another in any circumstance. You prove you deserve a shot in practice and that't it. If you can't prove it there then you have no reason being on the field.

You obviously don't see what is bolded.

I was responding to your comment about watching HS film to justify a player's value. The second they got on campus the value of HS film is greatly diminished - it comes down to what you can do in practice. So, if a guy like Freedom or any of the running backs have great HS film, it doesn't matter at this point. If you don't prove it in practice you don't deserve to see the field.

Plain and simple.

I didn't base it all off HS film. I am basing it off of who plays now isn't good enough to deserve all these carries. Ah yes, the famous 'practice player' approach.

Game results > practice results....neither of us can technically be correct if someone doesn't get any touches.

Every coach starts/plays the correct player all the time? Now that's a new one - We've already seen that be wrong 3x in 4 games.

Game results do matter over practice results. However, one of the biggest points of practice as a football coach is to figure out what players do well and what they don't do well. You then use that performance to justify playing time. For example, if Imani Cross drops passes out of the backfield, which he did a lot in practice this Fall, why would you then try to throw him passes in a game? It's illogical. Now, if player A isn't performing well in games, but player B hasn't shown much in practice, it puts you in an obviously challenging position. That's when a coach has to weigh the product on the field vs. the potential of a back-up. Clearly, for whatever reason, the coaches haven't had much faith in some of the back-ups, and they see a hell of a lot more than we do.

That's why, in the vast majority of cases, the best players at a given position are on the field. If a player isn't seeing the field then there are likely very good reasons for it in most cases.

Don't create a straw man argument to try and sound witty, either. There's enough of that on this board and I never said coaches always starts the correct player. The fact that I'm having to justify this right now is idiotic and quite honestly beneath you.

I get yours and other points but I am entitled to an opinion. Which I didn't think would take off after stating if you have received 0 carries in two years, and you think you should, good chance you will not stay on the team. Sometimes players practice better than others but it doesn't correlate into the game all the time. I think overall this staff knows what they are doing, but I think in this instance they are a little off, and I know some others see the same.

 

[Enhance]

I've seen enough with the play on the field THIS SEASON from some of the players you guys love who just aren't that good. Plain and simple.

High school stats and film are insufficient reasons to suggest one player should play over another in any circumstance. You prove you deserve a shot in practice and that't it. If you can't prove it there then you have no reason being on the field.

You obviously don't see what is bolded.

I was responding to your comment about watching HS film to justify a player's value. The second they got on campus the value of HS film is greatly diminished - it comes down to what you can do in practice. So, if a guy like Freedom or any of the running backs have great HS film, it doesn't matter at this point. If you don't prove it in practice you don't deserve to see the field.

Plain and simple.

I didn't base it all off HS film. I am basing it off of who plays now isn't good enough to deserve all these carries. Ah yes, the famous 'practice player' approach.

Game results > practice results....neither of us can technically be correct if someone doesn't get any touches.

Every coach starts/plays the correct player all the time? Now that's a new one - We've already seen that be wrong 3x in 4 games.

Game results do matter over practice results. However, one of the biggest points of practice as a football coach is to figure out what players do well and what they don't do well. You then use that performance to justify playing time. For example, if Imani Cross drops passes out of the backfield, which he did a lot in practice this Fall, why would you then try to throw him passes in a game? It's illogical. Now, if player A isn't performing well in games, but player B hasn't shown much in practice, it puts you in an obviously challenging position. That's when a coach has to weigh the product on the field vs. the potential of a back-up. Clearly, for whatever reason, the coaches haven't had much faith in some of the back-ups, and they see a hell of a lot more than we do.

That's why, in the vast majority of cases, the best players at a given position are on the field. If a player isn't seeing the field then there are likely very good reasons for it in most cases.

Don't create a straw man argument to try and sound witty, either. There's enough of that on this board and I never said coaches always starts the correct player. The fact that I'm having to justify this right now is idiotic and quite honestly beneath you.

I get yours and other points but I am entitled to an opinion. Which I didn't think would take off after stating if you have received 0 carries in two years, and you think you should, good chance you will not stay on the team. Sometimes players practice better than others but it doesn't correlate into the game all the time. I think overall this staff knows what they are doing, but I think in this instance they are a little off, and I know some others see the same.

Nothing wrong with that opinion. I'll be honest when I say I'm also confused why certain players have seen such extended playing time when there have been tons of struggles. However, I just also feel I appreciate the challenge that comes along with creating a depth chart and determining who sees playing time. I think it's very easy for any of us to say something like the coaches do a good job but in this case I think they're wrong. We could use that argument for just about anything and I don't think it's fair.

It's one of those situations where I think we have to put ourselves in their shoes, too. These coaches know a ton, obviously, but that doesn't mean they're perfect. They also see way more than we do and it's their job to figure out who needs to play. Again, they can be wrong, but I put the focus on the players to prove why the coaches are wrong. I don't immediately look at the coaches in these situations, but I can understand your viewpoint on the situation.

 

[BigRedBuster]

There is nothing wrong with wondering why a player gets do much playing time.

It's illogical to proclaim that a player nobody has seen play a single down of Div 1 football in three years and two major leg injuries as the second best at the position simply based on HS film from three years ago. Or, act like the previous staff is clueless because they had a true freshman at a different position.

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

Now we have a guy that knows more about talent recognition than seasoned division 1 coaches. He bases this on a players high school film?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

This place. Comic relief around here.

 

[Igetbored216]

Wilbon needs to do things better other than pass blocking. Like get better grades.

 

[Red Five]

[No message]

 

[Red Five]

[No message]

 

[Hayseed]

I just found out that Twitter refused to let me leave and made me an account full of things they thought I'd like. So while there I typed in Wilbon's account and indeed he is still with us.

There are many reasons why seemingly talented guys don't get on the field...one, runs the opposite way of the play that was called. Who knows what is going on there?? That certainly isn't the case with Cross, but could be with many of the newer guys.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

https://twitter.com/937johngaskins/status/663005949666299904

https://twitter.com/937johngaskins/status/663006804557717504

There were rumors about Wilbon's academic status. Here is the thing (1) the coaches lied to the fans when they said Wilbon won't see the field until he pass pros (go intentions but BS) and (2) it is crap to be so damn inconsistent about who to hold accountable (not naming names, but OL, RB, and DB are not held accountable for play and one caption is not held accountable for what he says to fans). Hard pass on the accolades to the staff for this. What about Foster? Same reason he does not see the field?

 

[Red Five]

https://twitter.com/937johngaskins/status/663005949666299904

https://twitter.com/937johngaskins/status/663006804557717504

There were rumors about Wilbon's academic status. Here is the thing (1) the coaches lied to the fans when they said Wilbon won't see the field until he pass pros (go intentions but BS) and (2) it is crap to be so damn inconsistent about who to hold accountable (not naming names, but OL, RB, and DB are not held accountable for play and one caption is not held accountable for what he says to fans). Hard pass on the accolades to the staff for this. What about Foster? Same reason he does not see the field?

I'm fine with the staff not calling out players academic status to the media.

 

[zoogs]

Davie wasn't pulled? Newby didn't lose his role as feature back and they didn't try to find other options? Kondo isn't being benched this week for a change at guard? Lewis wasn't publicly scolded (I agree, they could have taken a harsher stance)?

When it comes to on field stuff, it's a situation to manage. Sometimes you don't actually have the replacement bodies. Off field, I'm sure that there's more to just this that leads to Gaskins saying what he is saying.

On Wilbon, if academic stuff is the sole reason, I can see why you wouldn't want to put it out there, especially if the guy has a really long road back. Of course, saying it is maybe an option too. Shrug.