|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 29, 2021 14:12:41 GMT -6
Setting aside the stupid season on twitter, Madden was really an amazing figure - totally authentic, a legit winner and coach, excellent teacher (first to his teams, then to the whole football community). He even spent a lot of time with the video game developers in the early years talking football and helping them figure out how to make the game feel like football, especially in those early 1990s years when the technology wasn't there.
(The original story is that the developers told him that game systems could only handle 7 on 7 at the time, and he said that wasn't football and it needed to be 11 on 11. They told him that would "take years to make," and he said, "Well, then it will take years to make." Two years later they released the first Madden football game -- 11 on 11.)
He was just spooky good at explaining stuff without making you think he was trying to act smarter than you, which was especially valuable when you're young and learning the game. Plus he understood line play, and helped a lot of casual fans appreciate it and those players -- which is hard for many to do.
There's been some fun clips posted recently. I enjoyed this one, which I'd never seen before. (Think about his audience here -- the entire world watching the Super Bowl in the 80s, and he's going to explain the Bear 46 defense.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 14, 2021 18:11:23 GMT -6
I always took the ball because of the style we played and knowing our kids' psyche I wanted to go out and set the tone for the game by going on a bruising, long drive. We always believed our best defense was our offense. Especially if we were playing a faster team. "It's really hard to run fast after you've been hit by a truck" was what we told the kids all the time. And so many coachesare trained to defer we got the ball probably 85% of the time. I REALLY believe it was a main reason we went on that great 24 game regular season win streak. We controlled the pace and tone of the game from the opening whistle. You can drastically change a lot of coach's game plans and completely take them off script by going on a 6-7 minute scoring drive. Takes a lot of wind out of their kids' sails too. Get a defensive stop and then get a quicker paced score on the second possession? Game may as well be over if you're any good. "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." This is the main factor I was going to bring up. My last HC was a defensive minded guy and always deferred, until we starting running triple option stuff. That completely changed his thought process on it. (I had to do some convincing) We wanted to suck the wind right out of things and just physically abuse people that cant get ready in a week for it. Even if we didn't score the first drive, we always moved the ball the first series or two until they figure out the speed of how fast that fullback can hit. It gives this style team an advantage. And like larrymoe said,,,,if they have one screw up, most of these teas now will get greedy which leads to 3 and outs or short drives. Good, go sit on the bench with your hi falutiin offense for another 8 minutes and get even more frustrated as we take 4 a play. Navy just opened this Memphis game with a 21 play, 13:10 second touchdown drive, using up almost the entire first quarter. On the other hand as I type this, Memphis immediately answered with a 31 yard kick return followed by a 70 yard touchdown run.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 31, 2021 9:09:42 GMT -6
So many unanswered questions,haha. Where do they practice?? Do they practice? Do these kids go to other, real schools? How did they get their equipment? And I want to know who they played the previous Friday? What a crazy story. there are clips of players sharing helmets during the game floating around. a lot of these kids seem to have been sold a bill of goods - but yes, so many questions
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 25, 2021 10:51:23 GMT -6
I agree there. My point is how much support will a district now give coaches/school site administrators who are faced with similar (but not exact) situations? Who is going to make the decision that the narrowly tailored 8-1 ruling here would not cover a new situation. I guess what I am asking is who is going to trust that a lower level court will side with the coaches/schools in similar situations, vs just saying "we are not going to support/fight this" I just got done reading the majority opinion (written by Breyer) on Oyez. The school lost their case at the district level, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. That's all three levels of the federal judiciary kicking the school district in the nuts. Additionally, after making the decision to suspend the student for the next year, the student offered to apologize for what she had said. However, the school told her to go pound sand and upheld the suspension. The lesson school officials should take away from this decision is that discipline should be meted out precisely and proportionately. The only one to blame for the school district's defeat is the school district officials themselves, whose heavy-handed and uncompromising punishment gave this student no recourse other than filing a lawsuit. Long story short, if I was a superintendent and found my school in a similar circumstance, the decision-making process would begin with the idea that we don't want to end up in the Supreme Court. 😆 Well said. (And I wasn't criticizing before, just agreeing that that the case doesn't mean that *anything* that qualifies as punishment is unlawful. Also I will say that the Supreme Court generally *does* try to provide broad legal rules/guidance for future cases, but in this case they basically treated it as a fact specific example and are letting others go out and test these boundaries. Definitely an evolving and tricky area.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 25, 2021 9:02:30 GMT -6
My question is that based on this ruling- couldn’t she have sued and won given your punishment too ? Yes. The school failed to meet the required legal standard. So any "punishment" should theoretically result in the Court ruling in the cheerleader's favor. With that being said, I would argue that if the school had imposed a less severe penalty or simply issued a warning, the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed would be considerably lower. I think that's the biggest reason that I agree with the Court's decision. The severity of the punishment handed down by the school left the family with no alternative other than a lawsuit. Given the 8-1 ruling, I think it is fair to say that the school district received poor counsel from their lawyers. The court did not rule that all punishment of off campus behavior is unlawful. The legal standard just says whether, and to what extent, the first amendment applies, but once it applies there still are other standards like due process, proportionality, whether she signed a code of conduct/social media policy, etc.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 24, 2021 17:55:50 GMT -6
There is also a key difference in what the student did. She didn’t specifically mention individuals or the school by name. To the hypothetical above - she didnt cuss out the coach, teammates or the school. She vented frustration in a non-specific way. So the idea that a kid can blast a coaches play calls with no punishment is not an apples to apples. I think a more accurate hypothetical would be - you lose a game and you have a kid make a video that says “We need to run the f*cking ball”. And then you suspend the kid off the team for 365 days. Not sure that is right, or at least it is slicing it thin. She said "F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything.” On the other hand, as one of the Justices said at argument, if using swear words off campus can be punished (including by suspending you from the team), then schools/teams would be doing nothing but punishing.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 24, 2021 17:50:18 GMT -6
A few specifics/clarifications: - She was not suspended from school, just the cheer team but it was for an entire year. She didn't make the varsity cheer squad and was kept on JV, and then she recorded a snapchat on a weekend which went to 25 or so friends, and then one of those friends recorded it and sent it to the coaches and then it went to the school.
- The reason the Supreme Court took the case was because there has never been a "school speech" case involving off campus or internet speech -- which is an extremely tricky area. All the old cases dealt with situations where kids made comments/statements (or wore clothes making statements) on school property. Before the internet, you could draw a clearer line about speech at school or stuff the kid said outside of school.
- The premise of these cases is that students have some, but not full, free speech rights at school, i.e., you can't ostracize a kid for sincerely held political, religious, or other beliefs, but that isn't to say that he can stand up in the middle of calculus class and interrupt it to give a speech about our lord and savior or the latest economic theory (and if a teacher reprimands him that isn't a violation of his first amendment rights). This is typically viewed as the "substantial disruption" exception, and it includes that kind of example as well as ones where the concern was that the speech could lead to violence, etc.
- The school board (more or less) argued that the school could regulate anything and everything that touched on or talked about the school or any student or teacher no matter where the speaker was, so long as it could get back to the school -- which in the world of the internet is basically everything. The student's lawyers argued that either the speech still had to be on school property, or had to be clearly directed at the school.
- The Court sided with the student that the school's argument was overbroad and that she clearly had some first amendment rights -- but they also agreed that some off-campus/internet speech may be regulated and subject to punishment, though it was careful to say that it was too early to issue a "set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment
rule" based on this one case. - The Court did say there are three aspects of off-campus speech that makes it less likely schools will have an interest in regulating it: (1) a student’s off-campus speech will generally be the responsibility of that student’s parents; (2) any regulation of off-campus speech would cover virtually everything that a student says or does outside of school; and (3) the school has an interest in protecting unpopular speech and ideas by its students. But the Court said that some off-campus speech can be regulated, with examples like bullying, threats aimed at teachers or students, etc.
- But the Court said that even if some off-campus speech can be regulated, suspending thsi student for her snap violated the first amendment: If she had been an adult, it would normally be protected by the First Amendment; she created the snap off school grounds on a weekend, and there is no evidence that it caused the kind of "substantial disruption" that would justify her suspension.
- From the oral argument, there was clearly a sense that the coach overreacted. Justice Kavanaugh (who has coached youth girls basketball for years) in particular asked some basically non-legal questions that I thought was interesting: From the argument transcript: www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/20-255_869d.pdf
"JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: As a judge and maybe as a coach and a parent too, it seems like maybe a bit of over -- overreaction by the coach. So my reaction when I read this, she's competitive, she cares, she blew off steam like millions of other kids have when they're disappointed about being cut from the high school team or not being in the starting lineup or not making all league.
"And just by way of comparison about -- and to show how much it means to people, you know, arguably, the greatest basketball player of all time is inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2009 and gives a speech, and what does he talk about? He talks about getting cut as a sophomore from the varsity team. And he wasn't joking. He was critical 30 years later. It still -- it still bothered him. And I think that's just emblematic of how much it means to kids to make a high school team. It is so important to their lives, and coaches sweat the cuts, and it guts coaches to have to cut a kid who's on the bubble, and -- and good coaches understand the importance and they understand the emotions.
"So maybe what bothers me when I read all this is that it didn't seem like the punishment was tailored to the offense given what I just said about how important it is and you know how much it means to the kids. I mean, a year's suspension from the team just seems excessive to me. But how does that fit into the First Amendment doctrine or does it fit in at all in a case like this?"
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 2, 2019 11:52:02 GMT -6
****SPOILER ALERT**** Don't read any further if you haven't watched all the episodes. So, why did this season go so far off the rails for Indy? Clearly, there were serious issues at QB. None of the guys they had seemed to be very good. It seemed that the offense struggled in general. Lots of turnovers. Defensively, they had the kid who was the #1 JUCO player in the country but he did not seem to make much of an impact. In fact, the show didn't focus on him at all. I can't imagine that they weren't as talented as they were in the first season. Just wondering, from a football perspective, what exactly went wrong. 1. I thought the defense was generally solid. Felt really bad for the DC. JB was a total tool and then tried to take over the D... when he is an offensive guy. And the O was killing them far more than the D was. 2. They had multiple good players like Johnson (the #1 kid that went to Georgia) that did the right thing and aren't such dynamic tv personalities. That may be why they didn't focus on them. But theres like a half dozen other kids that went to P5 schools. 3. QB situation - bringing back Malik was awful. Of course they had no real answer there. They were bouncing around 4 guys. What in the world did their practice rep situation look like? And each had a different skill set. Your script with Jay and your script with Malik would not be the same. So I just assume that there was absolutely zero continuity. Can't operate and function like that. 4. Offensively, JB may have tried to do too much. He either didn't have good enough assistants or didn't let them work the way a proper staff should. 5. Overall, the biggest problem was cultural. It started at the top. Everyone was focused on the wrong things and it started with the HC. Absolutely no culture of accountability. Always someone else's fault. For everything. And that starts with the HC. Also too concerned with image and perception IMO. I know that editing has a lot to do with it, but there was so much time showing JB on social media and stuff reading about what people are saying (but then adamantly arguing that he doesn't give a F what people think... but clearly he does). I don't think we see him watch film at all this season. Again, I am sure he does. But it just didn't seem like the football aspect was ever the biggest deal. [ The Malik Henry thing is fascinating, in part since he did seem more mature this year — and note that Henry walked on at Nevada and just won the starting job there for Jay Norvell. He certainly didn’t help himself in season 3 but it did feel like he got jerked around in season 4.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 1, 2019 11:20:45 GMT -6
I think the bigger mystery is how did they win games the previous season with all of that dysfunction. Is it possible that they just did not do as good of a job recruiting? That the team simply was not as talented as the year before? Previous seasons of "Last Chance U" showed some amazingly talented football players who were going to go somewhere big-time if they could get their heads on straight socially and academically. I did not get the impression that, for this season, they had that same level of talent. Again...the kid who was the #1 JUCO player in the country. You would think he would be a major storyline. But he just wasn't. I'm assuming he was not particularly productive? Why else wouldn't the people who made the show focus on him? One of the fallacies of watching TV is that the storylines match the players' talent. They showed the Johnson kid because he was literally the #1 player, but you really never heard him speak. Per this article, Independence sent guys this year to Cal, Indiana, Colorado, and Vanderbilt -- really none of whom were featured at all. 247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Last-Chance-U-Season-4-Where-are-they-now-Indy-Part-2-133771496/#133771496_9I remember a couple of years ago EMCC had basically the top JUCO OL in the country who signed with (I think) Ole Miss, and he never really got shown, and a guy off the prior year's Independence team, Calvin Jackson, is going to probably start for Leach at Washington State after catching a few TDs last year. It's really hard to know. The other thing to remember is there's a reason the program returned to both EMCC and Independence, and (I thought) in both instances the show itself had really changed the program and the players. Buddy in the second season was trying all kinds of ways to control his anger after his meltdown at the end of Season 1, and in Season 4 it certainly seemed like Brown was hamming it up for the cameras and constantly either checking twitter or drinking. The moment at the end of the last episode at the bar where Brown is trying to impress those random people that he's the head coach on some TV show they have never heard of is sad. Anyway, I found this season very depressing and at times hard to watch -- and pretty dark in its way.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 28, 2019 7:28:31 GMT -6
There's nothing wrong with 5 minute breaks every 20-25 minutes (especially for players and their attention spans -- not exactly PhD students). How often do the people posting on an internet coaching message board go 30-40 minutes without checking the internet/their phone/etc.?
That said, his explanation of how he needs to let them get their social media "fix" definitely made it sound ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 8, 2018 8:28:37 GMT -6
It's like a lot of folks with politics, which is that I think (many, not all) coaches would make for faithful public servants, but (1) partisan politics/attack ads/rhetoric and all that stuff is probably both a turn off and a gating item and (2) one reason you see retired business people/lawyers/etc is that they are independently wealthy so they can take time to focus on running for (and spending to run for) office, whereas most coaches I know are trying to make a living and feed their families.
There's also the question about how much coaches know about policy issues (whether national or local, like fixing potholes), though query whether policy knowledge is really a job requirement these days (or has ever been).
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 7, 2018 13:38:56 GMT -6
Just for the record, pears are delicious
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 7, 2018 12:43:25 GMT -6
Long time assistant gets to practice late most days (because of school times) and when he is on the field coaching eats a pear every day during practice. Would this be ok in your program? It seems like the bigger issue is he's late (though maybe the reason is understandable), and the pear is somehow the cherry on top? I agree with the poster that said I'd rather see a guy eat a pear than dip. I do have a funny visual in my head of some guy like standing off to the side with his eyes closed just really -- really -- enjoying a pear.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 2, 2018 10:00:33 GMT -6
It's like being fired in any other private company -- there's the soft element (meeting to say going in a different direction) and the technical one (mostly whatever the employment agreement says about notice of termination). They can make it smooth or hardline depending on the club culture and the anticipated reaction. Even if they aren't happy these guys all want to get hired again, so hard to imagine an NFL head coach having to be physically removed from the building.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 13, 2018 17:06:26 GMT -6
Hard to give generic, general answers that work for everyone. Your goal is to help your team and, in the process, to keep your team. To do that you have two competing considerations: (1) you don't want to diminish the hard work from the rest of your team all season/offseason, but (2) you want to win -- and sometimes we as coaches forget that the players want to win just as much as the coaches, and if this guy will help the team win -- and everyone knows it -- then they will be happy he's there.
I am also assuming that since this guy is such a good multi-sport athlete that he's not known as someone around school who is totally lazy (maybe this is wrong).
I see no issue with telling the kid (1) he's welcome to join the team, but he's behind both in terms of what you do and also in terms of earning the trust and respect of the team who have been grinding for months/years and (2) involving your team captains to see what it would take for the kid to earn his way onto the field. As others said it's a long season, no reason he has to be plugged in as the #1 guy on day one.
The other advantage of that is you'll find out if he's willing to earn his way back on the field, or if he was hoping he'd just start catching touchdowns because of one phone call. The former you can work with, the latter is what messes up your team.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Aug 6, 2018 15:57:48 GMT -6
I would have to imagine that someone within the OSU empire knew that this story was in the pipeline. I can't believe that someone from the PR department didn't give Meyer a head's up..."Hey Coach, you might get asked a question about Zach Smith's history of domestic abuse. If you get asked that question, you need to direct all comments to the athletic department." Trying to keep this to the PR side, but one clarifying point is that (1) on June 23 the story breaks that Zach Smith's ex-wife had a protective order against him, (2) on June 23 (the same day) OSU/Meyer announced that Zach Smith had been fired and (3) on June 24 (the *next day*), at the B10 media interview, Meyer makes his comments. It seems safe to say Meyer had fair notice that there would be a Zach Smith question at B10 media days? Anyway, the other question is what responsibility do you have as an HC or as a school to not employ people because of things they do outside of the job. If your DC is the second coming of Bill Belichick but he's doing things off the field that he shouldn't -- drugs, domestic violence, whatever -- what responsibility do you have to fire them? Or, more difficult, if you hear rumors or "stories" about that kind of behavior, what responsibility do you have to confront them? It seems like with a lot of these stories (the Joe Paterno/Penn State one being a horrible extreme), there's a strong inclination to bury one's head in the sand -- see no evil, hear no evil. Not sure that approach works in 2018.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 27, 2018 19:27:59 GMT -6
My only comment on this is I think most folks watch a show like Last Chance U and get what it is; I mean, it's right there in the title -- "last chance," for players, coaches, etc. If you want to reflect well on the sport and profession the All or Nothing Series is tremendous. This... is something else. And above all it's entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 25, 2018 19:50:12 GMT -6
As others have said, it's a like a lot of things: is it being done in moderation or all the time, is it being done for a reason or just because you/the HC is throwing a temper tantrum, and does it have the intended effect? Nick Saban chews out assistants all the time because (1) he can, he's Nick Saban, (2) the assistants will take it (they are being paid a lot, get to coach at Alabama and it's great on the resume, (3) because usually (I'm told) there's a specific message Saban is trying to get across, and if saying it quietly doesn't work he's not afraid to yell it and (4) he (I'm told) will chew out assistants as a way to send messages to players (something Bill Walsh -- another guy who people said was not easy to coach for -- used to do a lot and talked about a lot). Indeed, Walsh said he'd frequently step into a drill if he saw players without good technique or some other issue and rip the coach in front of his position group, on the theory that it would actually bond the assistant and his players because they'd see their coach getting ripped for something they were responsible for and they'd often try harder for their assistants, so long as Walsh was picking out something real (and coachable).
Does that work? Probably, or at least a lot of the time. Are (3) and (4) more important... or (1) and (2)? Can you do (3) and (4) if you're not Nick Saban or Bill Walsh? Do a lot of coaches yell and scream just because they can, not because they have a point? Probably? Also, football is a game for people with thick skins, but I think we all know there's a lot of "football behavior" that probably wouldn't fly in just about any other environment (which might be good or bad).
The upshot is selective yelling ("ass chewings") is another tool in a head coach's toolbox to get people (players and coaches) to perform at the maximum of their capability, but I'm guessing that at least more than 50% of it is probably unnecessarily and often counter productive.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jun 26, 2018 13:14:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 21, 2018 10:58:17 GMT -6
Spreadattack, true indeed. My life is defined by irony and paradox. When I'm teaching I want to coach football; when I'm writing on Tolstoy, narrative, or lit theory and criticism, I want to be coaching football and studying football. When I'm coaching football I want to to read Tolstoy and write on literature. Go figure.... positively Chekhovian (More seriously, one nice thing about modern life/technology is there are now a number of ways to honor and give back to the game, while also continuing to pursue other interests/careers.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Mar 20, 2018 17:08:03 GMT -6
I've taught classes on Chekhov and Tolstoy. I've taught Dostoevsky many times in surveys of 19th century Russian lit. My work is on Tolstoy and the ethics and practice of History, so, I'm more of Tolstoy person by nature. That said, I've come to love Chekhov. The plays are great, but I especially like his mature prose. Dostoevsky is fabulous. My favorite Dostoevsky text is THE DEVILS. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is great, but its basically a super-charged detective novel. THE DEVILS is a narrative mess which makes it a blast to read and teach. It's also very germane to our world today. Let's get serious, the real questions for hemlock are not about Chekhov or Dostoevsky.... it's Leach or June Jones, or Mumme or John Jenkins???!??!?!?! P.S. While we're on the topic, everyone should read Chekhov's short stories. Really underrated.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 6, 2018 18:04:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 6, 2018 17:55:13 GMT -6
He was apparently smoking dope, late for curfew, got caught, got mad at the coaches and was acting a fool. I applaud BB for being able to stick to his guns and his team rules. Just blows my mind how a guy is so selfish and would let his team down like that. Then again, it happens all the time so I shouldn't be too surprised. To be clear, while this might be the case, I have seen no credible reports other than talk radio rumors that this was the reason, and as others pointed out BB did not cite any of these reasons for why he didn't play. I'm not saying what he did or did not do (I do not know), but I'd be hesitant to talk about how selfish he is when we don't know if he did any or all of those things (and the Patriots staff denies it). And, as others have said, had he done them during the week the decision would likely have been made earlier to make the switch (i.e., not immediately before the game started), and also dressing him and having him play one snap of special teams is just strange if it was disciplinary for all those reasons. I also note that Tom Brady just posted online, calling Butler a "great friend and teammate." I'm not sure Brady would say that if he had done all of the "selfish" things you note. Anyway, I am weirdly inclined to think it really was performance and not disciplinary. Butler struggled the last few games, he and others said he did not have a good week or two of practice before the SB (in part because he was sick). It's perfectly possible that Belichick and Ernie Adams on a final film review of practice and the prior games just decided to switch. (Then again, odd to go from 98% of snaps all the way to zero?) Whole situation is bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 31, 2018 11:53:04 GMT -6
I thought this article about the Patriots' approach to conditioning was interesting, that raises some thoughts on how coaches here work conditioning into their practices. www.theringer.com/nfl-playoffs/2018/1/30/16949762/super-bowl-new-england-patriots-fourth-quarter-comebacks-running-conditioning A few excerpts: "...“The conditioning is geared toward game performance. It’s not running to run. It’s running for a very specific event — a special teams play, a long offensive drive, a defensive stand,” [NE strength and conditioning coach] Cardona said. He lays out this practice drill: After a punt, there’s a dead sprint to cover the kick. This, of course, is a “very taxing” run in the first place, but Belichick is preparing for something even more specific. They practice kicking, a penalty that negates said kick, the walk back to the spot 5 yards behind the original line of scrimmage, then a re-kick and its subsequent dead sprint. “We come back and do it again,” Cardona said. “It is not the easiest thing.” The goal here, he said, is to get players in shape to sprint but also conditioned for this specific in-game scenario. ..."None of the Patriots I spoke with have played for a team with the practice consistency of the Patriots — the same practices in September as December. Martellus Bennett remarked last year, for instance, that he could not believe the Patriots were still running the hill during the playoffs. In his memoir, Julian Edelman referred to it as “the f-----g hill.”
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 10, 2018 9:12:28 GMT -6
Best part about Cutcliffe is he actually was pretty surly -- calling out effort, questioning Alabama's playcalling, ripping Georgia's coverage players/coaches on the final play, etc -- but he's such a nice, genteel fellow you don't even mind it. He was probably one of the most critical coaches they have ever had on there, but it totally didn't seem like it. (That's also part of good coaching: how to critique without insulting; it's more like just disappointing your Dad.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 9, 2018 9:23:29 GMT -6
I thought the Coaches Room was much better than I expected, especially Cutcliffe, Fitzgerald and Gundy, though everybody was pretty good actually. Matt Luke was funny since he used to coach OLine for Cutcliffe, could tell he sometimes deferred to him like he was still the HC. Also Cutcliffe blowing up kids for effort was amazing.
Big thing was after some scheme heavy coaches rooms I thought they did a really good job with head coach/situational football stuff, and some of the sidebars were golden.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 8, 2018 11:50:32 GMT -6
A pro guy would be good, but not sure how much prep they would have done. Maybe even a scout/GM type who has spent a lot of time on the teams and really knows the personnel. Patterson was good in the Rose Bowl since he'd played Oklahoma twice this season and had faced Georgia in the bowl game the year before, so he had a lot of familiarity.
Would like someone who knows Saban/Smart's defense. Muschamp wasn't bad a couple of years ago. (Lane would obviously be hilarious.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 2, 2018 23:04:05 GMT -6
Patterson talked circles around those guys What's even crazier is that Saban, Venables, Smart, and Don Brown are on an entirely different level than he is. Seems weird to say. Saban is in his own category, but why are the other guys so much better than Patterson? Built TCU into a top winner and coached top level defenses for 20 years? (Plus the 8000 threads on here using his terminology.)
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 2, 2018 13:58:08 GMT -6
Patterson was fantastic, thought, understanding he kind of dominated the room. I thought Holgo was good, particularly when Oklahoma had the ball for insight into how they call their offense, checks, etc. Dino was funny; Bielema was funny, good natured (handled some ribbing), and had a few good insights.
Fedora got there late but hit his stride during the Bama/Clemson game (which makes sense since he knows Clemson). Applewhite said little which was disappointing since he actually was Saban’s OC for a season so thought he’d have some insight, though it was funny that he looked at it almost as a learning experience and was asking the other coaches questions.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Dec 18, 2017 12:02:58 GMT -6
It's kind of an insanely difficult task. I should update this post with more concepts, but there's really no end to it. There are also always subtle changes, nuances, etc., and similar to the thoughts on this thread often I'd rather just describe the thing than use the jargon for it.
|
|