|
Bowden
Dec 2, 2009 7:25:16 GMT -6
Post by hemlock on Dec 2, 2009 7:25:16 GMT -6
I agree with everything that has been said; however, that does not conceal the fact that during the past ten years the program declined.
I agree with spread, Bobby was indeed one of the first "mainstream" coaches to run a spread offense; however, he did so primarily because of his OC - Mark Richt. We should all remember, and this indeed problematic, that he allowed his son, Jeff Bowden, to run Richt's system into the ground. Personally, I would have respected him more had he cut his boy loose after the first season. Jeff resigned, which was the right thing to do, but the old man should have cut him loose a long time ago.
My point is that no one person is greater than a program; yes, he turned the program into a power, but he ended up guiding it back to mediocrity. I have no doubt that Jimbo will bring the program back, but it did not have to decline the way it did over the past 10 years. No reason.
I spoken to two close friends that have coached against FSU's defense the past couple of years. Without prompting that both said that they were schematically at a disadvantage.
|
|
|
Bowden
Dec 1, 2009 18:11:37 GMT -6
Post by hemlock on Dec 1, 2009 18:11:37 GMT -6
This will probably start a firestorm, but oh well...
Anybody interested in sharing their thoughts about Bowden, his "retirement," his legacy, and the current situation at FSU?
I've never been a huge Bowden person. That's not very PC now, but even during the glory days I always had him pegged as the third best "coach" in Florida behind Dennis Erickson and Steve Spurrier. I think that his dependency on quality assistants really became apparent when Mark Richt bolted for Georgia. The difference between Richt and what followed was like night and day.
Now, it seems that the problem is on the other side of the ball. Since Jimbo Fisher has taken over the O, the offense has really come together. Jeff Trickett is another big part of that. One of the best line coaches in the country - PERIOD. Defensively they are a mess in more than one way. Schematically they seem like they are playing from a different era.
I personally think that Bowden should have hung up his whistle ten years ago. For him to hang around as he did essentially as a figurehead I found to be somewhat disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 25, 2009 17:56:36 GMT -6
Even if Franklin went to LSU it would'nt matter much. Les Miles has a very fine offensive coordinator right now - Gary Crowton. Miles is a bit like Gene Stallings, of whom it was said that only he could stop a Homer Smith offense. The joke of this is that Smith was Stallings OC at Alabama. This applies to Miles as well.
Franklin has done a great job, as I expected, at MTSU. I would be bitter if I were him too. He had a shot at the big time at Auburn and was sabotaged by his own staff. What should be noted about his current work is that his QB was a disaster last year for MTSU. Tony's abrasive, but he's a fine, fine coach, but one whose personality will prevent him from probably landing another high profile gig.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 27, 2009 16:04:11 GMT -6
Yes, it's important for kids to have fun - they won't play if they don't.
Programs that run grab-bag systems at the top are in the long run not going to be very successfull in developing players. They will win in spite of themselves when they have studs and lose when they don't.
I believe Brophy said this, but JV coaches must be Varsity coaches. They must have assignments and responsibilities. For that matter, Freshmen coaches should also have varsity responsibilites. Coaches make up the backbone of the program; if they are not all on board with the system than the kids will never be.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 27, 2009 10:57:35 GMT -6
The goal of the JV is not necessarily to win. If the JV or Freshman teams win that's all gravy. Very nice and all, but the purpose of JV and Freshman ball is to begin preparing kids to play productively and win at the varsity level. JV players need to develop skills that are essential to what the varsity does. Essentially, the JV should run the same base package on both offense and defense that the varsity run. There should be no need to gameplan for JV games or anything like that. JV and Freshman games are glorified scrimmages - that's it. It is the JV coaches job to convey to his kids that winning at that level is not important; nobody cares. All that matter is that you develop the skill necessary to win at the varsity level.
Also, it is important that the varsity coaches convey this to the JV and Frosh coaches. They need to understand what their role in the program is and how important it is. By the time a kid matriculates up to the varsity he should know the language of the program inside and out, should not need to be told what a given concept or play is, and be ready to be plugged in. If he is not it reflects directly on those coaching him at the JV and Frosh level.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 21, 2009 16:50:26 GMT -6
As far as the article is concerned, what it suggests to me above all else is that Pryor's high school coach himself has much to learn about football and that he himself is not too terribly bright. I'm not saying that he is not bright, just that the article makes him seem as if he is somewhat ignorant. The media has a tendency of doing this.
I'm sure that Tressel tried to do everything he could to sign TP. But again, this is why it is so important to have good coaches as the high school level who know the ins and outs of the game and the recruting culture. A good coach would have gotten some game film through the years of JT's offense going back to Youngstown state, put them on with TP and put together a narrative that demonstrates what this guy and his system is all about. In fact, he would do the same with all the offenses from of the schools that are recruiting him and walk him through the tape - explaining the pros and cons of each system, what their respective MOs are, etc.
I think coachinghopeful is being a bit generous with Tressel. Nobody doubts his skill as a coach - that's evident. He has coached competent QBs that are effective within the structure of a power run game and play action passing game.
I think that coachinghopeful hits the nail square on the head though with his assessment of how Tressel has been unable to adapt to Pryor and vice versa.
Personally, I think that even as a power team OSU since Tressel has arrived has been grab bag. My suggestion, for what its worth, is that he consider implementing a system akin to what the Buffs ran when Eliot Uzelac was the OC - double tight ace. He would have the personnel to do it, its a great package in and of itself, and it would fit with his personality while giving him a SYSTEM on which to hang his hat that cohesive and not multiple in the grab-bag sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 21, 2009 6:32:05 GMT -6
In response to coachinghopeful's second response, I was not questioning the QB coaching of option based coaches. For example, I think Paul Johnson, as Chris noted earlier, is a fabulous QB coach who truly teaches his kid to play the position the right way. The difference is that nothing that has ever happened at OSU in general on offense and more specifically with their QBs, even with Troy Smith, makes me marvel. They seem very mediocre at just about everything they do. Troy Smith got exposure, has a lot of physical ability, but was a never a truly special QB. Also, I would not suggest that OSU is an option based offense. They frankly don't seem to have much of an identity. They try to run a little bit of everything, from power and some limited option, to spread and five hot. As a result they are not very good at anything, and it shows when they play excelllent competition.
Your comments as to why TTech QBs get shots but don't stick around has merit, but I've asked that same question and here is the general response I got. I used Tony Romo as an example when I dished it to my friends. Both said that for a kid to make it like Romo did in the NFL the stars really have to align within the organization at that time in just the right way. Romo benefitted immensely from having a guy like Parcells at first who does not place a lot of cred in the draft anyway. He also had people like Anthony Wright (drugs) and Drew Bledsoe (age) in front of him who were not going to last. Most of the time, such a low pick, unless he is drafted by the right organization, that is, an organization whose operating culture is different from most, will be buried so far down that he will simply not have a chance. His only opportunity will be to knock around and hope that a few things break his way. For example, Kliff Kingsbury knocked around for a few years with the Jets and Patriots and by all accounts played well enough to move up the depthchart. Both also noted that the curve with them is just much shorter. By this I mean that when Josh Freeman makes a bad throw, he's given a pat and another rep, the minute a Harrell or a Kingsbury throws a duck he's sent back to the hole. So the challenges are frequently just too much to overcome.
I understand you points about why a kid would choose the USC or similar type program. But understand, going to USC or Notre Dame makes sense if you are a QB and you wish to be developed. Both are excellent in that regard. However, Ohio State or Ole Miss are head scratchers. Yes, Ole Miss had Eli Manning, but that was when David Cutcliff was there and he is a QB guru to whom I would send my kid in an instant. Houston Nutt has absolutely no track record with QBs.
Earlier, a poster mentioned that Leach's QBs are more like short-stops that pitchers. Excellent observation. In fact, a QB should be a short-stop type. A QB is a ball distributor - PERIOD. His primary function is to disperse the ball around the field. That is exactly how Kevin Wilson described Zak Kustok to me when I spent a week with the Northwestern people a number of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 20, 2009 19:07:44 GMT -6
Pantherpride: I respect Joe Daniels immensely and have great empathy for him; however, what he did with Troy Smith is relatively minor. Smith won the Heisman because he got exposure, which is what the Heisman is about anyway.
Let's not inflate the loss of Daniels. Daniels track record is hardly akin to that of Leach, Jones, etc.
For what its worth, I don't think that Pryor would have gotten great coaching at Michigan. RichRod's system does not develop great passers - that's not the focal point. However, Pryor probably would have been better served overall if he had chosen Michigan because their system is much more conceptually unified than Tressel's. Tressel runs a grab-bag offense; always has, most likely always will. They do not do any one thing particularly well and this is most evident when they play teams that have equal or better talent than they do.
Wingtol, I appreciate that sentiment, but that is where the HS head coach comes in. It is his job to tutor his apprentice so that such things as stadium size, national exposure, etc are no longer important. Moreover, a coach should also use this as a test of his kid's character: its easy to go to a place that's in front, but it's also boring. Going the path less traveled tells much more about the person and is also much more fun.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 20, 2009 17:06:27 GMT -6
In response to Brophy's question: In regards to player coachability, I think that it is critical to establish what your expectations are right from the beginning. Especially with johnny bluechip it is vital to make your expectations clear. This is especially important at the QB position. I've been in this situation myself where I had a kid that was stud, but did wish to develop his skills, and a kid who was a worker-bee. From my perspective it was obvious: I started the worker-bee and had tremendous results. The stud transferred and had Michael Vick type career, but never put it all together. The worker-bee threw for 3,000 yards, the Michael Vick type less that 1,000. I made it very clear to the stud: you either accept coaching or you do not play - very simple. was a non-negotiable position. The point being that I really did not care what he thought. In many ways it was sort of like the choice that McDaniels faced Cutler. He knew that Cutler was not a fit for what he wanted, but Orton was and that in his system Orton would thrive. Sure, the bluechip will say that "I've done it this way for god knows how long," but my response is simply that it is irrelevant to this situation and to playing for me. PERIOD. If you refuse to accept coaching (and I am the one who determines what that means) then you simply will not play.
I agree with much of what spreadattack says, but all the skills one needs to play in the AirRaid are the same as those use in any NFL offense. The Patriots are barely under center, so the maxim that you must operate from under center is no longer law. Play action reads are very simple compared to the full-field reads that Leach's kids have to make.
I'm going to merge the views of two QB coaches that I'm close with in the NFL about AirRaid QBs and why they are not drafted. Both guys over the years have worked out a number of AirRaid QBs. Both said that they have in incredible sense of what is going on on the field and that they comprehend things at the conceptual level very easily. By this, I mean that they translate what they learn at TTech to what NFL teams do in their systems without much difficulty. What was interesting was that both believed that the NFL's evaluation process is held hostage by the media. That is, the media creates hype around a group of players, which then fosters an impression which soon becomes a fact. Both guys I spoke with said that they would have been comfortable drafting Harrel and not Stafford or Freeman, but that their front-offices would not risk the wrath of media scrutiny since ESPN and Mel Kiper had already determined that Harrel was a "system quarterback."
Spreadattack notes that Brees had to learn different things when he got to the NFL. This is true, but to anybody who knows quarterbacking the reason he was special at Purdue, even when operating out of the gun, was his footwork, the near perfect weight distribution that he demonstrates as he sits in the pocket. Tech QBs also demonstrate this.
More later...
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 20, 2009 10:35:53 GMT -6
I don't think you can use the NFL as a measure. The NFL's metrics for assessing QBs are notoriously bad. The NFL writes off Mike Leach's and June Jones' kids under the auspice that they are system QBs and then proceeds to draft people like Vince Young, Michael Vick who have received average to mediocre coaching at best.
What I'm suggesting is that the NFL should begin to reassess its system of evaluation and look more at production and position preparation than simply raw ability. Spreadattack's point about Orton and Brees is excellent. They both received good preparation at Purdue. Both excel in offenses that demand that they understand how to manipulate the system in order to make it work for them. The same with Leach at Tech. His kids have an innate sense of what their offense is designed to achieve. Compare this to Pryor the other day versus Purdue or any other week. I coached college QBs long enough and worked for enough QB gurus (Terry Shea) to know that Pryor when he gets under center does not even look at the defense - at either the front, the linebacker structure, or the coverage shell. That tells you a lot about the kid as well as the coaching he receives. It was was the same exact thing with Michael Vick when he was at VTech.
Yes, I understand Brophy's point about exposure and he's right, but I believe that is part of the job of the high school coach. That is, to stear his kid to a program that will serve his needs the best. Leach's kids have by and large been shutout because of the media (I have this from a former QB coach in the NFL) even when its evident that they have the arm strength to make all the throws they need to. You cannot say that the Corner route to the field in 92 (the Mesh) from the opposite hash is not a big time throw - it is. If I were a high school coach I would see it as my responsibility to sit with the kid and talk long and hard with him about the need to pick a program that is going to teach him how to do things the right way - that is, play the game the right way and play his position the right way.
Back to Brophy's point. I know for a fact that Mack Brown hoped that Young's athleticism would win. I was at the game a few years ago against Kansas when they suddenly put Young in the shotgun. The reason was very simple: for two years they had tried to teach the kid how to dropback, but they were never able to calibrate his feet to the drops. They simply gave up coaching him, which was probably the right thing to do at the time, but the fact that they were never able to do it successfully in two years tells you something about how they were coaching him and what they were demanding of him. The problem for Young however was that when he got to the NFL he had and still has dreadful footwork.
But again, I think it is imperative to demonstrate to kids, especially those that have the potential to play on Sundays, the need to view their college years as a type of apprenticeship where they will learn the ins and outs of their craft.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 20, 2009 9:26:34 GMT -6
Earlier in the season spreadattack posted a commentary on Dr. Saturday about how Jim Tressel got outcoached against USC. I'm not especially interested in OSU, but I've watched some games this year nevertheless. There are a few things that have become evident:
1) Tressel runs spread environments only in the cosmetic sense. As a program they really do not seem to get what it's really about.
2) Pryor (or Prior) has regressed a great deal. It is very clear that he is not getting the coaching at OSU that he requires if he is to be anything more than an athelete who lines up behind center.
This brings me to Mike Leach. The job that his QBs have done this year is absolutely amazing. We've always known that Leach can plug people in from Kingsbury to Cody Hodges and eventually Graham Harrel, but look at the phenomenal job he has done this year. Three guys have taken snaps for him this year and there has been no scaling things back. It's not just the system, but the coaching they get.
Compare this to the "coaching" that Pryor seems to get at OSU.
This leads me to ask the question: Why would any kid, be it Pryor or Jevan Snead at Ole Miss choose to go to a program that does not develop QBs. It's clear that the coaching that Leach's kids get at the QB position is far superior to what they get at OSU with Tressel and Ole Miss with Nutt. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 28, 2009 20:18:01 GMT -6
Absolutely, you, your wife, and your baby are in my thoughts. Please keep us updated.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 11, 2009 20:15:32 GMT -6
Auburn, I have a difficult time believing that fans in the state of Alabama would equate Franklin's offense to a High School one. I thought that fans in the South, especially Alabama, know their football. Do they not know that Franklin's offense is the same thing that Leach uses?
I think some other points that a few of you were making are interesting in regards to Franklin's personality and such. Some made comments about his hermit-like ways and disheveled appearence. Pardon the digression, but in literature and linguistics this is what we view as an example of the "center-periphery"phenomenon. According to this theory, which frankly is not a theory at this point, but more of an accepted "fact," the "center" of a culture, the cultural focal point is inherently more conservative. For linguists this is illustrated in the population's use of language. By and large the language of the center is codified, highly standardized, and conventional. When we move outside of language and into the realm of thought this phenomenon is not observed in the values, mores, and behaviors of the people. In general, people in the center are more conformist, they are less likely to buck the trend, they are more susceptable to the cultural, sociological, political, and ideological pressures of the center.
Things are somewhat different on the periphery. The periphery, or the margins of society, is a place that is both archaic and innovative. In terms of language, it is in the periphery where older, more archaic and less standard forms of the language exist. This is for the most part evident in Iceland. In Iceland the population, the descendents of the vikings, speak a language that is very close to what Old Norse, the language of Vikings who first settled the area. The same also applies culturally. In Russia, for example, there are pockets of Orthodox Christians who still practice their faith in the way the Old Russians did before the Schism in the Sixteenth Century. They also speak a dialect of Russian that is decidedly archaic and at times difficult for the modern ear.
By the same token, the periphery is also a place where innovation occurs, where people experiment with new concepts and new ideas that are free of the center's influence.
What does this have to do with football? Well, the periphery in football is where archaic offenses thrive and give birth to what come to label as innovations. This is the realm of the option, Run-n-Shoot, and AirRaid. This also the land where renegade coaches go, guys whose personalities, ideology, values, appearence, etc find themselves coaching - guys like Mike Leach (OK, Tech is Big 12, but why was Leach never a serious candidate for the Auburn job? Why did Auburn turn to somebody who as a head coach could not carry Leach's boots? I think we know the answer)
Innovation trickles to the center from the periphery. However, the center accepts only those things that conform to its values. Yes, the spread has become mainstream now, as spreadattack has noted and lamented with his remarks about the bad spread team, but it is not Hal Mumme's spread by and large, nor June Jones' Run-N-Shoot. It's something that still appeals to what the center believes its identity to be - physical, running football. This, in my opinion, is why RichRod's spread is palatable to a place like Michigan, but Jones' Run-N-Shoot is not. This is why the triple option ala Johnson at GTech has returned from the backwaters of football - because even thought it is option football, it is still running football.
Tony Franklin is an innovator. He sniffed the center, but will probably toil the rest of his career along the margins of football, albeit with much success.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 11, 2009 8:06:39 GMT -6
Outlaw, what do you mean when you write that TF was "in over his head"? Are you speaking from a coaching perspective - that Xs and Os, because if so I would have to disagree very strongly.
Also, one poster noted that UK was not very good when Mumme was there? That's false. They went to two bowls and were the offensive terror of the SEC so much so that when Stoops went to OU you he specifically sought out Mike Leach because he wanted to run what he dreaded the most as a DC at Florida. UK's offense after than under TF was very good.
I agree with jw8, its hard to imagine that Tubs hired TF believing that he would get a RichRod type of spread. If he did, shame on him.
That said, I think TF's coments about faith provide valuable insight into the culture of the Auburn program. Also, phantom is absolutely correct, for if the coaches did indeed where their religion on their sleeves in the workplace like in that manner than that too is highly unprofessional. In fact, in most places that would result in either a warning and/or termination. For example, I'm an aetheist, but that is my business. I worked on two staffs where the majority of my fellow coaches, many of whom are dear friends of mine to this day, were Christian conservatives. Religion NEVER came up unless we were out of the office having a few drinks while talking about things other than football. Only then, if asked directly, would I ever answer the question and even then only because these guys were and still are my friends. the fact that Tubs created such a culture reflects poorly on his skills as an administrator. What's even more troubling is the fact that it was allowed to fester in a department within a university. I teach now at UW-Madison and I can only imagine what would happen if somebody, regardless of faith, sought to create such a culture in a university sponsored community.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 6, 2009 10:07:56 GMT -6
Just so we are straight on something. First, the System is nothing new - it's the same thing that Leach and Mumme use, so that clearly demonstrates that it works. Second, Franklin as a coordinator is very proven commodity - the results at Troy speak for themselves.
Franklin reached when he took the Auburn job; sure, he probably should have said no and gone with his instincts, but it's human nature. MTSU's offense will do very well under his guidence. Stockstill is a fairly hands-off type of coach. Moreover, he's faces Franklin's offense every year since he has to play Troy in the SunBelt.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 5, 2009 21:08:26 GMT -6
Coachdawhip, you may be correct, but I think that there will always be a place for a guy like him; it may not be in a major conference or at an elite school again, but good coaches, at any level, are rarer than you think and any place that needs a good coach and is willing to simply turn that side of the ball over to him will be fine. Rick Stockstill is in a situation at MTU where he has to turn the corner or else he's done. Blakney, although more secure at the time, was at a crossroads at Troy; they needed to turn the corner and that's why he went with TF.
Franklin will continue to coach along the margins of big time football. Frankly, no pun intended, that is where most of the great coaching really occurs.
Coaches that don't wish to hire him simply because he will speak his mind to need to take a look in the mirror. Do you want a staff that is akin to the Bush administration, a collection of yes men who will fall on their swords simply to save you? If that is the case, it sounds as if you (and please note, I'm speaking figuratively here - I'm not referencing anybody in particular) than it seems to me that you may know in advance that everything you may do is not necessarily kosher in Denmark, which is in fact akin to something we call intent. Basically, coaches that don't like Franklin are similar to CEOs (read Enron) and administrations that hate whistle blowers. What does that tell you about the culture of coaching? Hhmmm....?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 5, 2009 17:26:14 GMT -6
Knowing Tony, I don't think he would have signed a deal that included a "no discuss" clause.
I think some of you are being a bit harsh on TF. The fact that he won't keep quiet or refuses to grab his ankles when something is afoul actually speaks volumes about his character and integrity. The fact that he was blackballed after UK for so long should tell you something about the profession. One of the reasons I elected to leave the college ranks after coaching at two DI schools was because of the ethics and values of the profession and how they ran counter my own.
I think that TF should talk. Because of the Auburn debacle his reputation as a football coach took a drubbing in the media. People were writing that he was in over his head in the SEC from a scheme point of view. Of course he had to respond. The fact was that Tubbs put him in a situation where he was doomed to fail right from the start. Rot starts from the top....
I guess what I'm trying ot say is lighten up on TF. He was not the problem. The problem was a bunch of yucks like Hugh Nall and Steve E(what's his name?) who began undermining TF right from the beginning.
TF will do great at MTU. Hopefully he gets the chance to go to a major conference again, but he will do just fine there.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Feb 7, 2009 20:18:37 GMT -6
I will comment on this later, but the Run-N-Shoot is an offense - the spread is a style of football of which the Shoot happens to be a part. June is one of the original Run-N-Shoot gurus; however, it should be noted that many of the adjustments he made over the years were first conceived and implemented by Jenkins. Well before Jones, Jenkins started to play with the splits of his receivers, especially his slots who he kicked out to the hashes.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Feb 1, 2009 12:37:36 GMT -6
jahanawa - what do you mean by "real" football?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Feb 1, 2009 8:22:09 GMT -6
I don't want to offend anyone here, but the idea of banning the offense simply because it takes advantage of the rules is lame. Whether you like them or not, Humphries and Bryant are bright guys who recognized a possibility and ran with it. Should we hold it against people for being smart, outside the box thinkers who understand the potential of language. What they exploited was not a loophole, but rather a lack. Just because they recognized that something was not forbidden in the rule book and took advantage of it does that mean that they have changed the rules of the game or that they are not playing by the rules? Please. They are indeed playing by the rules. When we yap and scream for the rules to be changed we sound increasingly medieval. When we scream for a rule change it sounds as if we are against anybody who builds a better mousetrap. We are in essence saying that you have to play the way we do in order to be a member of our club. Not only does that sound exclusionist, but down right tribal. The A-11 is based upon an interpretation of the rules; in this regard it is similar to how justices interpret the constituion. What they A-11 creators identified was portion of the text that was open to interpretation. That's actually pretty smart and should not be ridiculed and condemned, but actually celebrated. Rulebooks are like any other text - they are subject to interpretation.
Many of the other complaints against the offense are equally problematic. Many posters seem to have a problem with the offense because it challenges players, coaches, and officials to work extra hard to distinguish elligible receivers from inelligible ones. What I find interesting about this argument is that it seems to run against one of the major claims that coaches love to make about football - that it is like chess on grass or that it is "war." Well, war is premised to a large extent on subterfuge. If a force can conceal his intentions and mask his tactics it has a decided advantage. Remember, there are no "rules" to war. What the A-11 does is it enables a "force" that is outmatched to compete and possibly win against superior opponents. Think of it this way: Why does Hamas in Gaza wage war against Israel using what the western media has duped as "terrorist" tactics? (BTW - the British called us terrorists too during the Revolution; in particular, they found the American use of snipers to be especially vile) Clearly, the reason is that they do not have the means to fight a conventional war with traditional forces. Why did the VietCong employ guerilla tactics against us in Vietnam? Because it offered them the best chance to win. When we complain about the A-11 we sound like Westmoreland who to his death resented the VietCong for its tactics and claimed had they fought him like a "man" that he would have whipped them. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I think that there are a number of good things that can come out of the A-11. One is that it should bring about a higher level of officiating. Banning the offense simply because officials are too ignorant and incompetent to call a game correctly in which it is played is silly. Also, its a challenge to coaches. The remark above that it forces a coach to change his defense for one opponent underscores the one of offense's primary advantages. In this way its not any different from the triple option that Navy and GTech run. Should the ACC ban the option because Bill Young griped about how difficult it was to prepare his players for it in one week? Absolutely not.
Let the offense in. Let's see what it does. When we complain and call for its exclusion we in a sense sound like proponents of controlled economies who rail against allowing foreign competitors into our markets. If the A-11 is sound and it can win consitently, it will develop a market and change the game. If it can't, then it will quietly go the way of the dodo bird. Simple as that. Either way we have nothing to be afraid of.
Personally, I think the offense, maybe not in its exact form, represents the future in football. Football is no longer about lining up and knocking somebody's block off. That's a good thing. The game over the last 25 years has increasingly become more cerebral as more and more teams have begun to operate in spread environments. Oh, and BTW, with all respect to PHANTOM, I would disagree with your remarks about how nobody has ever dissed the spread. I've coached HS and major college ball and many coaches viewed, as recently as a decade ago, spread systems as something other than football. For proof of this, look at how traditional coaches view Mike Leach. While they accept his success, they still do not believe that he advocates a real style of football. Interestingly, and I know this for a fact because we spoke about last spring, but Leach is fascinated by the A-11.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 16, 2008 18:38:52 GMT -6
Gill was but one qualified candidate. There were others, each way more qualified than Chizik. That's the point. Gill is highlighted simply because he clearly was qualified, but did not get the big gig. This simply underscores what people have been talking about for some time - when a black coach gets an opportunity, for the most part, it is at some downtrodden program that is going through a really tough patch. Here was an opportunity where a guy was clearly ready for a prime time job who lost it not to another qualified white guy, but a white guy who really has demonstrated that he can polish his boots.
Had Patterson gotten the job there would have been some grumbling, but nothing too over the top.
As I noted earlier, the issue upon which this debate pivots is the word "fit."
Chizik may have done great things has Auburn's DC, but in reality, who has not in that job. Muschamp came in and did great and so did Paul Rhodes this year. The point is that ISU has regressed under Chizik. Now, to be totally fare, he inherited a program that was starting to trend down. McCarney did a heroic job there, but fresh blood was needed. So Chizik inherited cupboard that while not empty, was by no means full and overflowing with ready to use merchandise.
Speaking of "fit," I never thought that he was a good fit for ISU. McCarney was a good "fit" for that place; his personality, work eithic, character (other than the little domestic abuse thing he had, but which he sought earnestly to correct when he got there), etc.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 16, 2008 14:22:48 GMT -6
No offense Fort, but you really are oversimplifying things. If you read my post in detail, you would see that race is not the only issue. "Fit" covers lots of things. Plus, as phantom noted, Buffalo was nothing before Gill got there. Three years and MAC championship. That's fine coaching by any metric. Moreover, he made them competitive by year two - last year may be more impressive than this.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 16, 2008 12:48:27 GMT -6
I don't think you would have heard the race card had Auburn hired somebody whose credentials as a head coach were better than Gill's. Had they hired Gary Patterson or Mike Leach (had he been in the running) over Gill the race card would never have come up. The problem is that Chizik has yet to earn his spurs as a HC.
Fit is code for a lot of things. Sure, "fit" can be used to gloss over race or a whole variety of other things. Think about how the McCain Campaign tried to create viable narratives so people could openly vote against Obama and justify it if asked without having to say anything about race.
What needs to be understood is that this issue is not sui generis to only the South. The majority of doners and boosters of most universities are white. If you have ever attended a booster club meeting at a country club or alumni association you would see what I mean. The majority of VIPs who have luxary boxes are white. These are the people that in many instances, but especially at old money institutions, university presidents have to make comfortable. When push comes to shove, most want to be with people that are like them, that look like them and to a certain degree share their values. While this most definately has severe racial implications, it transgresses race as well. Look at Mike Leach. A Mormon, a lawyer with legitimate intellectual bent is viewed hostilly not only by his peers, but others as well.
University presidents are in a bind on this one. By nature, university presidents are intellectuals that embrace difference and eschew sameness; they would rather their campus be heterogeneous rather than homogeneous. When dealing with alums and boosters, however, their dealing with cats that, albeit successful in whatever industry they work, are frequently not the most open-minded or culturally diverse individuals in the world. This is the world of the booster - WASP (WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT) and it is not only alive, but thriving in American universities. The Chizik hire reflects this. Yes, while "fit" does imply race, it also implies values and if you decode Jacobs' statement you will see that they were looking for somebody who reflects the "values" of a certain part of the Auburn community. I can assure you, as a faculty member at a large state institution, very few faculty share Jacobs' values. Whether the football coach is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Mormon would matter very little (if at all) to the vast majority of Auburn's community. However, these people are not the community that matter - that of Bobby Lowder, Pat Dye, and Jacobs - hardly what I would call polyglot band of merrymakers.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 15, 2008 21:26:40 GMT -6
I'm relieved nobody from the South who posts on this board took my point the wrong way. Like I said, I love the South and its people.
Unfortunately, as OJW notes, Southerners make easy targets on this issue and some others as well.
I agree, football has done a lot for integration.
BTW, Auburn's AD used my favorite word to describe the hire - "Coach Chizik is the best fit for Auburn." What an innocuous, yet critically important little word.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 15, 2008 20:32:41 GMT -6
I hate to say it, but something stinks about the way this hire was done. I generally dismiss whatever floats out of Charles Barkley's mouth, but I think that their might be some truth in what he is saying.
I don't want to ramble about race. I've spent a lot of time in the South and I love it; love the people, love the culture, love the way of life. In many ways the South is far more racially integrated than the North. However, within certain elite circles, the moneyed and well healed circles that for the most part happend to be caucasian I feel that old prejudices die hard.
The fact is, when you compare the resumes, Gill's by far is superior to Chizik's; morever, he inherited and built (not rebuilt) a program with absolutely no tradition whatsoever. And then there is that thing called temperment. I've met Gill and I've met Chizik. There is little doubt in my mind who I would rather have representing my university - Turner Gill - a gentleman and a scholar. As far as Chizik is concerned, well, the less said the better.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 14, 2008 19:04:48 GMT -6
In all reality this is not too entirely surprising. Turner Gill was available, but I think there are reasons why certain people within the Auburn establishment would Ok going in that direction, which is unfortunate, because he really is the real deal.
While I am not a Chizek fan, I can understand why Auburn would hire him over, let's say, somebody like Mike Leach. Chizik is a part of the Auburn family. During his tenure there he was very popular with with the alumns and boosters. In particular, he fits the profile of what they believe a football coach is supposed to be: Alpha, conservative, as well as being both socially and football wise. He is not too terribly bright. When talking with him get the impression that you are talking to a typical football coach. In other words, he is not Mike Leach.
Earlier I posted that Leach would be stupid to take the Auburn job for cultural reasons even if they offered it to him. I know many of you may think that I am making a big deal about this "culture" thing, but it really is important, because it relates to the issue of "fit." That is, is this guy a good "fit" for us. Remember Mike Price. Price is a fabulous football coach. Throughout his entire career he has done more with less on a routine basis. He was hired by Alabama, and yes, made a mistake, but by that time 'Bama's brass was looking for any reason they could to get rid of him. The West Coast, progressive, liberal Price was not a "fit" for the culture of UA; he did not conform to their idea of what a football coach should be. This is what most likely would have happened at Auburn had they made any overtures to Leach. The first time he stumbled they would have been all over him like flies on ..... It's sad, because they ended up hiring a guy who has yet shown that he has what it takes, even though I think we should remember that ISU is not a walk in the park.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 10, 2008 14:54:20 GMT -6
That's all that I was saying. GT will win, but a lot of the kids that are in and of themselves difference makers, ones that are already thinking about the NFL will not want to go there. Frankly, you can't blame them, because when you play in the option you learn a different skill set from that employed throughout the NFL. While QB may get all the attention, this in reality most glaring at the OLINE position, because the skills that are taught for option football are fundamentally different from those in the NFL. Again, does that mean that the offense won't win - absolutely not.
The point about Michigan is also correct; however, this will only really impact the types of QBs that will come out of Ann Arbor. The other skill positions as well as the line will continue to learn skills that are transferable to the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 9, 2008 22:02:28 GMT -6
The point that I think some posters forget, but one that all spread guys will acknowledge, is that in the modern game the Run-N-Shoot is wellspring that gave birth to the spread in all its various shades that we know today. Also, OU won a National Championship with the AirRaid one year after Leach left. They threw the ball as much if not more than Jenkins did during the heyday of the Run-N-Shoot.
Another point that I would like to address that I believe davecisar made concerns the perceived intracasies of the option versus the simplicity of the AirRaid. The size of Leach's playchart means nothing. In fact thats the beauty of the thing. Also, when you think of it, what Johnson does is EXTREMELY simple and straightforward. Everybody knows what he is going to do. Do you think that Bill Young and Randy Shannon at Miami do not know what Tech is going to do? Of course not, they knew exactly what was coming, but could do nothing to stop it. The same thing can be said for Osborne's I option. I coached against it for four years. From a schematic/gameplan it was not all that and a bag of chips. We knew their tendencies, their formationing, etc, but they just executed flawlessly. It was a simple system built around a few well integrated concepts - just like Johnson's spread option, and Leach's AirRaid.
Also, the AirRaid is an inverted cousin of the option. Its Mesh is the option's inside veer.
My one fear for Johnson is that he may ceiling with the offense. By this I mean that he is still playing with Gailey's kids and has yet had to go out and fill out a roster by convincing kids at that level that they can learn the skills they need to play in the NFL by playing in his system. He will have a very difficult time in the long run getting receivers and quarterbacks that are coveted by other teams. Other programs will use the option against him in recruting and eventually some stupid alum will wonder why we are losing such and such to Georgia?
Does that mean that the offense will be stopped? Not necessarily, but its something we should be aware of
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 6, 2008 21:02:23 GMT -6
Nobody doubts Dr. Tom's knowledge, but he is stating the obvious. Most coaches worth their salt have never for minute doubted the effectiveness of the option.
What needs to be emphasized, however, as Johnson himself is quick to point out, is that he too runs the spread, only under center.
Florida runs the option too and when Meyer was at Utah they ran a lot more veer triple out of the gun than he does today.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 4, 2008 9:16:42 GMT -6
What phantom is implying is correct. The landscape of the game has changed so much in the past 20 year that one program's so-called storied past means relatively little.
I would actually say that Tech is a better job. Auburn is an unhealthy environment. You have a culture in place that is counter-productive. Bobby Lowder, a banker, runs the university and particularly the athletic department. Gerald Meyers is a great AD at Tech, takes care of his people, and has their back. I'd rather be there than at a place where a banker who has the football iq of a cockroach runs the program.
|
|