|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 2, 2009 7:24:03 GMT -6
Blount Could Return To The FieldRather than set up another locked thread (as the original one 4 weeks ago), I am offering this up to gain insight on when it is appropriate to invoke the privileges of the panic button (just win at all costs)...whether it be abandoning the game plan, making stuff up during a game, inconsistent accountability, whatever.....
|
|
|
|
Post by coachguy83 on Oct 2, 2009 9:11:20 GMT -6
Well I think every coach has used the panic button and some point. The question is is it the little red button of the giant glowing red button. I know just last week I hit the little one and throw the game plan out the window, because we were doing jack crap on offense. I was just trying to find a chink in the armour to take advantage of, and it never worked. I'm never a fan of making stuff up in a game, if we haven't repped it we ain't running it. I think we are all guilty of unconsistent accountability at least once in our careers, I know I am, but the question is have you learned from it. The issue with Oregon and this player I don't think is a panic button issue as much as it is a possible over reaction. The kid made a really stupid mistake and the knee jerk reaction was to sit him the rest of the year. Well the kid seems to have learned from the mistake and is doing things the right way, so maybe the knee jerk reaction was wrong. The right thing to do in my opinion was to take one of two courses, 1) send him packing or 2) suspend him indefinently so that if he does the right things there is always a chance of bringing him back. Doing it this way makes the coaching staff look like they have no balls.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Oct 4, 2009 13:36:45 GMT -6
I know you asked your question in GENERAL terms, but looking at the Oregon situation, I don't see this as a panic button at all. Kelly suspended Blount for the season (for the Boise incident and other previous "crimes" - the punch was simply Blount's 3rd - or 5th - strike).
Since then, Oregon has done pretty darn well - thrashing #6 California - and appears to be out of whatever doldrums they started the season with. Now, IF they were getting their a$$es kicked and Kelly started making these noises, THEN you could say he was panicking. THIS appears more to be creating opportunities for the young man to continue to learn that if he does the right thing, there are positive consequences.
To answer your question about when is it OK to panic...I would say never. If you feel your need to change the game plan then change it - not out of panic but because of careful thought and consideration. Inconsistent accountability? Would you tolerate it from the players? From your assistants? Don't panic! You're the Coach! Work to find the answers and leave the panicking to the parents and fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Oct 4, 2009 14:03:08 GMT -6
He should talk to DR. Tom Osborne about the Lawrence Phillips situation before he moves forward. Dr. Tom I believe was very conflicted about Lawrence. Still Lawrence Phillips was a thug. He tried to kick Tom Rathman's butt one day while in the pros and he came out on the short end of the stick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Shane on Oct 4, 2009 14:42:55 GMT -6
He should talk to DR. Tom Osborne about the Lawrence Phillips situation before he moves forward. Dr. Tom I believe was very conflicted about Lawrence. Still Lawrence Phillips was a thug. He tried to kick Tom Rathman's butt one day while in the pros and he came out on the short end of the stick. Not to mention that Phillips is back in jail for the umpteenth time. |
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Oct 4, 2009 16:27:18 GMT -6
I have a hard time with stuff like this because I do believe in giving people the opportunity to prove themselves, but finding the hard line is rough. I want to walk my Christian talk, but I do think that "seventy times seven" is a bit too many chances for a football player. Blount's clearly messed up about 4 times, but if you set forth stringent, specific, and difficult goals for someone and they meet them, why not give them more opportunities?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 4, 2009 16:43:44 GMT -6
I think it is probably never ok to push a panic button. All that does is result in disaster. It is NEVER ok to have inconsistent accountability. I do not like that Blount will be given a "second" (read:--5th or 6th) chance. I do not like the message this sends to the OTHER 100 on the team, or 1,000's of those aware of it.
Safety nets beget future problems not solutions. I constantly point out the NOLA scenario and Katrina. People were told in advance there will be no shelter of last resort...yet because they have ALWAYS had someone else giving them safety net second chances.. many stayed and we saw the results. Last year, when Gustave was threatening, people had solutions, not problems.
|
|
lgoody
Freshmen Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by lgoody on Oct 5, 2009 7:11:25 GMT -6
...I think this is good for the kid. Blount gets a chance to set his life in order, and play ball again. The only knee jerk reaction was his year long suspension. There is a stringent set of guidelines Blount must follow, and he can only come back Nov. 7th. They probably won't put him back as the starter either. That's not exactly slappin' the panic button. Its just giving a kid another opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by airraid77 on Oct 5, 2009 8:17:36 GMT -6
this aint the panic win at all cost move. not even close. Kelly said he could be reinstated no earlier than NOV.AFter the USC game. by then their season is over for the most part.
If you have a system, and I am not talking about just x's and o's, in place, then you should never have to push the panic button. If you do any of the things brophy mention, abandoning the game plan, making stuff up during a game, inconsistent accountability, whatever..... , I question your ability to be a head coach. But if you are in that scenario where you decide to push the button, its probably to late anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Oct 5, 2009 10:22:43 GMT -6
1. Blount had off the field issues before the Boise State game. The Boise State game was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
2. The suspension should stand; I think he's been given a 'second chance' because he's still on scholarship. He's going to get an education for free.
3. You put him back on the field, for the sake of the Ws, then your program just took a step back, IMO.
I graduated from a university and we had 'thug' issues that were never dealt with. Back then, the program relied heavily on 'second chance' transfers; meaning that they played with a lot of guys with behavioral issues. There were numerous issues in the community; some of them very public, some of them quiet within the community, but condones by the program. Hell, there was one guy in the program who was smoking weed in front of a bar at 5pm!
What happens? Two transfers got heavy into drugs and ended up shooting a drug dealer and burying him ON CAMPUS. Then, two other transfers were caught dealing drugs and were removed from the program. The coaches and administration knew that these kinds of things were going on, to some extent and dished out a 'third chance' in one case.
When it all came down to it, the HC was fired because of all of the b.s., has applied at many schools, including his alma mater, and can't get a job. The issues that these players caused set the program back 2 years; the program lost scholarships because they weren't exactly 'students' and the next HC that came in had to basically build from scratch. We're finally competing again, after two years of mediocre play..
Bottom line; you bring Blount back, there's going to be some bad hoodoo going on at Oregon. What are the players going to think? I imagine most of them will be under the impression that their coach doesn't have a whole lot of faith in them and is willing to bring a liability back onto the team to rectify the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Oct 5, 2009 12:49:59 GMT -6
I can't answer about when to starting doing crazy stuff on the field.
As for players, misconduct, and punishment...I believe they, and their indiscretions, should be taken on a case by case basis. EVERYTHING can and should be factored in, and yes that includes their on the field contribution when it comes to college scholarship athletes. As I've heard many coaches explain, "being treated fairly doesn't always mean being treated equally". Some of you may recall a player on the Minnesota Vikings named David Palmer. David played at the U. of Alabama for Gene Stallings. David got a couple of DUIs in school. Coach Stallings took lots of heat for keeping him on the team, but explained once that he did what he did in the best interest of David. He said the team and football was all David had (and that was true) and that it was a certainty that if David were simply put out on the street he wouldn't finish his education and would almost certainly wind up in serious trouble. The best thing for him was to be under the watchful eye of coaches. David didn't get in any more trouble after that, and he went on to a fairly productive NFL career as a punt returner, #3/#4 WR, and I think they even used him a time or two in "the Wildcat" though they didn't call it that 15 years ago...I know they used him that way at UA. I think Coach Osbourne's rationale was similar. That's only 2 players, but it's a 50% success rate in keeping thugs on the team and making better humans out of them. In the long run, the world is better off that David Palmer went on to the NFL rather than the streets of Birmingham, AL. Even if the success rate is 1 in 100, the world is still better off if that one contributes positively rather than takes, or makes other's lives miserable.
You can't do that with every kid, but some you can, and some I think you should. Case by case.
|
|
|
|
Post by airman on Oct 5, 2009 14:02:24 GMT -6
I think it to is a case by case thing. The blount case is a on the field issue vs off the field issues like phillips. i think you have to cut players loose when they get in trouble with the law multiple times.
|
|
