|
Post by hemlock on Sept 29, 2008 6:34:54 GMT -6
Yes, Todd first signed with TTech and then transferred to a JC in Kansas once he realized that he would never beat out Graham Harrell.
The other thing is that Auburn fans and Tubs need to realize that this is the SEC. Urban Meyer's version of the spread has never been quite as prolific as it was in the Mountain West. That's natural. It's still a good offense, but its simply not as flashy.
From what I understand their is a tension on the Auburn staff. Tuberville hired him after he was schooled for a half by Hal Mumme and NMSU last year. He had an epiphany of sorts. However, he does not seem to understand that Franklin wants to throw the rock. Ideally he would like the offense to be closer to what Leach and Mumme do than what Meyer does. We should remember that this is the AirRaid just with a very advanced no-huddle element.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 29, 2008 6:02:45 GMT -6
Has anybody been keeping up with Auburn this year. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at how Franklin is being treated on the Plains. What did they think was going to happen? It will take at least a year for them to get the kinks worked out in that offense due to the personnel issues they have on offense.
Also, Tuberville hired Franklin to run HIS system. It already seems as if he is caving in and forcing him to do stuff that seems as if it comes from the Al Borges' era. Another point is that Todd is clearly more ready to play than Burns. Todd understands the offense, its evident when he is in the game. Burns can make great plays once in a while, but he can execute the routine plays that make that offense really go.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 15, 2008 14:32:47 GMT -6
I'm not giving NU all that much credit. I know that they are not that good. The thing is that regardless of what scheme NMSU runs they will not be able to stop the run.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 15, 2008 6:30:34 GMT -6
The 3-5-3 and 3-3-5 is a very effective scheme and a nightmare to prepare for. West Virginia ran it under RichRod. There are lots of threads on it on this site. NMSU was not effective because they just don't have the personnel to be effective against a team like NU. There defense will be somewhat more effective in WAC play, but the offense will carry the load.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 25, 2008 6:01:38 GMT -6
I appreciate the commentary on Milton Friedman and Stiglitz by Ted and Chris. Although find Friedman a particularly vile figure, he is nonetheless somebody whose thought needs to be studied and appreciated.
In regards to our dear friend Machievelli, my views are rather mixed. After all, a book that the infamous "turdblossom" Rove and Lee Atwater allegedly carried on their person at all times and read at least once a year is extremely suspect, particularly on moral and ethical grounds. That said, THE PRINCE is a fascinating read and is something that should be on everybody's bookshelf.
In regards to football, particularly at the high-school level, its applicability is somewhat more questionable. To a degree it may have been more applicable back in the "day," but now it simply will not fly. Why do you think that football is losing kids all the time to baseball and soccer? Why are more parents enrolling their kids in soccer than football, especially in affluent, white-collar communities? The answer is complex, but their are a few red threads. First, kids (and their parents) want to have fun. Competition and victory mean very little. Kids today just want to show up and play. Second, football is considered to be a consuming sport, one that demands twelve months of preparation for a mere twelve games. For many people, the sacrifice is simply too much. Most parents and kids today can't deal with the fact that many players may ride the pine for three years before they actually get any meaningful action. The fact that they are essentially a danger to themselves and their teammates until that point is not important. Sacrifice, commitment, being a part of something bigger than yourself is something that most people, unfortunately, do not understand. They say that soccer teaches all the same things without all the baggage that the sacrifice the football demands.
Why am a rambling about this? The reason is that you cannot be a Bill Parcells type whose motivational tactics are inpart motivated or inspired by Machiavelli. Unlike yesterday, in many communities, particularly those outside of the South, football is just a sport and one at that that many parents are inherently suspect of. Most kids don't feel that they have to play football these days, there are plenty of other options that satisfy their glucose craving without the sacrifice - sports that in many instance simply role a ball out there and say have fun.
Ask yourself this question: Where would you rather coach? A) Affluent, suburban community where most parents work white-collar jobs; B) Inner-City, urban environment; C) Rust-Belt, blue-collar, industrial; D) Agricultural, farming. Even though I am an academic who lives in a liberal, progressive, and economically healthy community, I certainly would not want to coach here. My answer would be first C and then D. These are communities where kids not only have to still play football, but its also in their DNA.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 14, 2008 5:54:14 GMT -6
I actually appreciate what Airman did. I believe that as coaches part of our responsibility is to educate fans about football. How can somebody actually enjoy something they don't understand? That's something that has always bothered me. Perhaps that's the reason I'm now an academic and not a football coach.
Think about, the best color people in football is (or was) Bill Curry. Curry truly approached his job as an analyst as a teacher; he believed that it was his job to explain the game and not just cater to the fans' worst instincts. I have tried to talk to people about the game. You would think that 3 bowl rings (no, I don't have them on all at once) would be enough to convince people that I do have clue about what I am talking about, but as Airman noted, they still think that NFL live or Espn people actually know more. They actually think that Mel Kiper knows something about football!!! A friend who is still coaching told me that he met Kiper when he came to evaluate one of their kids on the dline. He said that Kiper was nothing but an uberfan. It was apparent when they were watching film and could not identify the line techs of the dlinemen.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 8, 2008 8:03:44 GMT -6
I would not coach at a school unless I was confident that the AD and the Administration as a whole understood the importance of football. That means that Football is the flagship program of the Athletic Department. That means that other sports play second fiddle to the needs of football. Without that type of support I would not coach HS football again.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Apr 27, 2008 7:03:06 GMT -6
There was a comment that the types of reads that the R&S creates are not applicable in the pro game. This is not entirely accurate. The R&S was extremely successful in the NFL.
In many ways I would say that the reads that systems like the R&S and AirRaid offer reflect the superior design of their offenses to those that are envogue in the NFL. Reads should clean up fairly quickly and simply; that reflects the packages design. A QB should not be forced to jam a ball into a space; that's a bad decision. I have plenty of tape of the Lions, Oilers, and Falcons running the R&S and even in the NFL their reads open up much more cleanly than those in traditional offenses.
Also, people make a lot about being in the gun. Tom Brady operates from the gun 60% of the time and even more in some games. Moreover, Charlie Weis being an old R&S guy from his HS days at Franklin High in NJ, still uses R&S principles as the foundation for many of his route structures and concepts. Watch the film, it don't lie.
Also, the QB position in all leagues should not be about "making" plays. It's about ball distribution. The QB is the point-guard, the shortstop of the offense, the conduit through which ball is spread around. Look at how Drew Brees plays the position and how he manipulates and utilizes all of the tools at his disposal. That is the template that teams should look at. Compare that ding dong Vick and ding dong Young and other such yucks and we see that long term success is linked not to one's ability to make entertaining runs etc, but rather one's ability to master the system, to make the routine check downs, shallows, and hook-curl routes that move any offense.
Actually, Brennan would be an ideal fit in an offense like Sean Payton's.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Apr 13, 2008 17:03:57 GMT -6
I learned that image is very important. When I GAed I showed up wearing what I thought was a normal set of duds at the office. The head coach pulled me aside and told me that I represent the program, gave me his Gold card, called a clothing store and hooked me up. I was so embarrased and have never forgotten that. Humiliating yes, but definately correct. Even at the HS level I would expect my coaches to look sharp; invest some bucks in your clothes; you get what you pay for. How can you expect your kids to take pride in themselves if you and your staff look like a bunch of second rate slobs. On game day we all look the same; during the school day I want may coaches looking sharp. In our school they represent our program to everybody else. It may sound trivial, but it does matter.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 28, 2007 7:08:21 GMT -6
Great coaches have the ability to take person where they cannot go by themselves.
To varying degrees I would agree with many of points noted above. I think that Dave's "program" view for high-school is right on target. I know that this may sound odd, but at the high school level you need a person sees the big picture but is also a good coach. You need to create a program that creates a productive feeder system from the youth leagues up. Everybody running the same system, using the same terminology, etc. This is tough. At the high school level I think that it is critical that HC recognize the importance of having good coaches at the FROSH level. This often gets overlooked. Personally I think the stipends for the FROSH guys should be higher and and that the HC should try to get his better coaches working with them; he can concentrate on coaching up the younger assistants that might not know as much football.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 14, 2008 6:54:50 GMT -6
I'm all for making kids sign a contract in princiiple; however, I suspect that in most situations, particulalry those outside of regions in the US where football is a crucial part of a community's culture, is hardly enforcable. For example, when I coached HS ball in NJ I saw that for most schools there the biggest problem was numbers. Especially for programs in the inner city or similar urban environments where a contract would be most needed. The same goes for wealthy communities. Here, the kids have way too many options and distractions; the idea of a contract is ideal, but parents would balk like there is no tomorrow because none of them seem to understand that there is something greater and more important than their individual little Johnny. They all want to win, but without the commitment. This is why I refuse to coach HS ball unless I know that I will have the support to do it the right way.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 28, 2008 6:33:07 GMT -6
It's culture. Brophy is 100% right. I'm a northerner by birth, but I've recruited in both the south and the north and the quality of coaching is much better in the Texas and in the Deep South. The level of athletic talent is not such a big deal; Jersey kids are athletes; however, southern kids when you get them to campus know a lot more football than northern kids for the most part. The football skills of southern kids are clearly superior. Also, the schemes that southern teams run generally are closer to those at the college level. As a rule, it is evident that their staffs put much more time into the game year round, which reflects the values of their respective communities. For the most part, when I recruited a kid from the north, I knew that I was getting an athlete, when I recruited a kid from the south I knew that I was getting both an athlete and a football player.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 15, 2008 18:36:41 GMT -6
The key is to implement a system that has enough tools in the toolbox to adapt iin a given year. Other than that, what you are describing will result in a grab bag approach. You don't coach what you know, you coach what YOU BELIEVE IN. Very few coaches, particularly at the high school level, will change their stripes. You will rarely find a I formation coach willing to embrace the Run-n-Shoot. It requires commitment. That is why you think not year to year, but PROGRAM. Even at small schools, you have to develop and implement a system that you believe in, that you have Faith in, and that you know inside and out. I know a guy who took over a wishbone team and implemented the Run-N-Shoot. People thought he was nuts, but in two years he had them in the playoffs. Why? Because he implemented something that he knew like the back of his hand and that he believed in.
The problem, and I mean no offense, is finding people who really know their stuff.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Mar 29, 2008 20:09:31 GMT -6
I think that there is some truth in most of what has been said here thusfar. The point that some may not wish to run the offense because of their unfamiliarity with passing game is true. Yes, some may become irritated with this, but the fact remains that many coaches at the HS level no less about the nuances of the passing game ranging from route concepts and structures to protections.
More important, however, is the commitment to run a 5 Wide system. I believe airraid said something about this. You should not run try to install this type of offense only if you when you have a strong armed QB. To run this offense you have to be disciple of like June Jones is of the Run-N-Shoot. To implement a true 5 wide offense, one predicated on sound principles that are geared not only for success at the HS level, but at higher levels requires a great deal of commitment. By commitment I mean not only the strength needed to weather the criticism you wil undoubtedly face when things go bad, which they will well before they become good, but more importantly the commitment to researching and developing your system, to know all of its nuances, etc.
The long and the short of it is that anybody can learn the passing game, the real question is whether people have the desire and the will to do so.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 17, 2007 18:45:26 GMT -6
I humbly disagree with airman. Rodriguez will run his offense. This is a major move for Michigan and one that will alter the dynamics of the Big 10 for years to come. Rodriguez will do what most who understand football have longed for: running a spread system with "A" grade talent. It may take a year or two to have all the pieces in place, but in the he will field a dynamic team with top tier players who will force other programs in the Big 10 to alter their approach if they want to keep up with his fast break style of football. The spread in the Big 10 will no longer be what programs like Northwestern run simply to compete, but will in fact become the norm.
If I were Mallet I would transfer. Sure he a huge talent, but he not the right talent to be the point-guard in the spread offense. Mallet is a pitcher; to run the spread you need a short-stop. Mallet should transfer to a program that will hone his skills for the next level. Arkansas would at this point seem ideal, despite the problems that Petrino brings simply by being there. Regardless of what you might think of him as a human being, Petrino is a remarkable mind and a brilliant tutor of QBs.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 16, 2007 20:28:06 GMT -6
I agree, the U made a mistake in firing Mase. I coached for him at KU and he is a fine coach who got as much out of that program as was possible given the situation. This is not a not on Tim Brewster and the fine staff that he has assembled; however, the AD REACTED to what happened against Texas Tech, something that really was not surprising given Tech's history (Read 70 points in the second half against TCU three years ago).
Yes, Glen is a bit abbrasive and not too media friendly at times, but he gets the most out of what he has. People say he was not a good recruiter; that is flat out not true. Recruiting is in fact one of his historic strengths. At KU we recruited successfully against Nebraska, Ohio State, etc. When he left KU, Terry Allen competed for kids with Tulsa, SW-Missouri State, etc. The fact is that Minnesota does not have a lot of great High School talent and the facilities throughout the majority of Glen's tenure at the U were just downright horrid. Without Glen's success they would never have generated enough support to break ground on a new stadium. Mase will most definately be back.
By the way, just as a side note, I remember when I was at KU were getting ready to play Colorado when Elliot Uzelac was the OC. Even back the Mase was fascinated by the blocking schemes that they were using, which led him to essentially hire Uzelac as his OC in order to teach the system to Mitch Browning.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 31, 2007 16:42:30 GMT -6
Bennett is done, but will coach the remainder of the season. Phil is a great guy. I coached with his former Assistant HC and he is a class act. I think that he has set the table very well for the guy that follows him.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 3, 2007 15:58:45 GMT -6
Jones' point was absolutely correct. Tebow is every bit as much of a system QB as Brennan; the rub is that he runs the ball, a fact that appeals to traditionalist sympathies as to what proper football is;
People love to knock guys like Andre Ware and David Klingler. What they forget to mention is that both, but especially Klingler, were put into bad situations. To this day I believe that Ware could have succeeded had Fontes gone about things differently; Klingler, well he was drafted by what was perhaps the worst organization in Pro Football at the time. 'Nuff said.
People like Kiper should look less at what a kid does in the combine; few QB's are asked to regularly throw the 18 yard comback out from the far hash. QB's make their living in the NFL throwing the same types of routes that both the Air-Raid and Run-n-Shoot emphasize - seams, hook to curl, shallows, etc. If you can make these routine throws consistently then you have the skills needed to play the position.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 3, 2007 7:05:28 GMT -6
Jerks like Mel Kiper make way too much of this system thing. BTW - Bill Tobin was right about Kiper. He knows NOTHING about football - the ultimate confidence man.
All QB's are system QB's. Tom Brady is a system QB who spends most of his time in the Gun. Many of his throws are slips, smoke routes, quick slants, etc. People talk about "making NFL" reads. What does this mean, I ask? Kiper and the like certainly do not know. The Run-N-Shoot employs many of the same reads as any other offense. To some degree its even more complicated because the QB must be in sync with his receivers. Like any offense, the QB must be able to manipulate the system, something that Brennan does very well.
People should stop jerking him around because he plays in the Run-N-Shoot. When people like Kiper ridicule R&S QB's what they are in fact saying is that most NFL offenses are not as well conceived from a philosophical point of view.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 6, 2008 10:03:16 GMT -6
Most big programs will not take a chance on a guy like Jones. That's part of the reason, I believe, that Jones would want to go to SMU. Established programs will not take a chance on something that is perceived as heretical as the Run-N-Shoot. Even in the new era of the spread, the Run-N-Shoot is perceived by many of the establishment as being to loosy-goosey and flimsy. All they will do is point to the Sugar Bowl. Naturally, this is short sighted, but its the reality. Rodriguez and Myer are appealing to bigger schools because although they preach the spread, they are nonetheless committed to running the football. Even the pure triple option as practiced by Paul Johnson is more palatable to most of the football establishment because it is predicated upon running the ball. Football administrators listen to the establishment are terrified by the possibility of debacles like the Sugar Bowl in which a teams philosophy by its very nature exposes all of its deficiencies.
Why do you think that Mike Leach never gets serious consideration from bigger schools whenever there is an opening. Similar to Jones, Leach is a prophet whose gospels are to the establishment akin to the apocryphal gnostic texts.
For Jones, losing the way they did in the Sugar Bowl was similar to Houston's crushing defeat during the Jenkins era on ESPN versus the University of Miami. Just when the offense had the opportunity to become legitimate in the eyes of mainstream America it fell short, not because of scheme, but deficiencies in talent.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 6, 2008 9:30:07 GMT -6
This is really not that surprising. I've been to the islands twice over the past four years and their facilities are just an abomination. I think that after the Sugar Bowl Jones realized that he had probably taken the program as far as he could with what he has to work with.
Although Jones loves Hawai'i, I think that we have to remember that he is something of a prophet type coach. A big part of his M.O as a football coach is spreading the gospel of the Run-N-Shoot. Although he will never say it out loud, part of what makes him tick is a desire to demonstrate to all that you can win at the highest levels with this system. SMU is hardly a great program, but they lots of things that Hawai'i never will - money and location. SMU has the money to build facilities that are comprable to any of the major BCS schools. In terms of cash on hand they are in a much better position than any of the other Conference USA schools; moveover, because of their cash and location, they are probably the one Conference USA school that with a few years of success could make a legit bid to move into a bigger conference.
I don't want to analyze this too much, but I also think that the loss to Georgia revealed some things to Jones about the type of athletes that they are able to recruit to the islands. As has been noted in previous posts, the most glaring problems were along the line. Although they are solid, well-coached group, they lack the athleticism of Texas-Tech's oline. In order to kick your splits out like Tech does and widen the corner you need to have access to real athletes. Hawai's tackles look more like guards. Texas Tech essentially plays with four tackles and one guard, which is the type of athlete you need if you are going to do what they do with their protections. On the islands your just not going to get that type of athlete.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 18, 2008 8:56:13 GMT -6
Brophy, I agree, but how a prospect will be utilized reflects the coaching he will receive and the skills that he will develop. The skills one learns under June Jones are different than those that one learns under Greg Davis at UT. If I'm a prospect and I want to really master the craft of quarterbacking, which BTW is how it should be presented, I would most definately want to play for a guy like Jones, Leach, Mumme, Zauenbrecher at Purdue, Petrino, etc. The overall profile of the program would never factor into the equation.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 18, 2008 8:01:49 GMT -6
I think part of the problem is the way NFL people go about evaluating QBs. The system label has to be removed from the equation. Yes, what Michigan used to do and what Arkansas, or is going to do with Petrino, or at BC with Jags and Steve Logan probably most resembles what a QB will run on Sundays; however, the coaching QBs get at Purdue, Tech, New Mexico State, and now at SMU is outstanding. Most impressive is the these programs tutor their QBs in front recognition, protection principles, and coverage identification. If I were a DIA prospect with a good head on my shoulders I would rather go to one of these schools rather than Texas, VTech, Ohio State, etc.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 17, 2008 20:02:18 GMT -6
BROPHY - I meant the latter. Also, "council" (and pardon the typo) may also be used as a verb - i.e. "To council a person on a matter."
I apologize for a poorely formulated question. What I was trying to ask, is if you have a good prospect (mental and physical) do you advise him to go to a place where he is going to get good coaching. For example, if I had been Vince Young's coach or Michael Vick's coach I would never have advised them to go to the schools where they went. The coaching at that position is just not very good, particularly when compared to what other, albeit lesser known programs have to offer.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 17, 2008 19:27:19 GMT -6
Norm Chow's unceremonious dismissal as OC of the Titans has stimulated an interesting conversation. I would like to know how many of you council your potential recruits in regards to where they should go in order to receive the best coaching.
Particularly for QBs, I view this position as a craft. When I had a kid that I believed had the raw potential to be something special, I counciled him as to where he should go in order to become an elite QB. I did not take into consideration whether program was top 25 or not. These are the programs that I would recommend to a QB with the potential to develop into something special:
Texas Tech New Mexico, Hawai'i Purdue Kentucky Arkansas Michigan BYU
Thoughts
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 4, 2007 20:03:41 GMT -6
People say that so many of the throws that Brennan makes are extended handoffs that any HS qb could make. Not really true. The most basic ordinary throws are the ones that require great fundemental mechanics - footwork. These are the throws that win championships.
What are NFL throws and how often does a QB actually make them?
Jones is absolutely right about Tebow. People say that he has improved as a passer; not really, the reads that he is forced to make in that system because of the option threat are very transparent. Brennan on the other hand has to work thru a myriad of different looks all the time.
Frankly I don't get why the ability to run the ball mesmorizes fans. It's pretty boring. Just an opinion
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 2, 2008 9:04:21 GMT -6
I agree with everything that Dave says; however, deciding where to go must be a rational decision. If I was still coaching HS, I would really push my kids, especially if they were O-lineman, QBs, or receivers to go to UH, Texas Tech, Purdue, etc. The coaching at these places is great. The coaches are real teachers, not hollerers who approach the game with professional/cerebral level of sophistication. A friend of mine in the League told me that some of the best coached and prepared lineman that he has worked in terms of technique, footwork, and recognition have come from Purdue and Tech. As a coach, I just would tell my kids that if you go to place like this, regardless of whether it is an outpost or not you are going to get outstanding coaching.
Also, if you talk to pro-guys, most of them believe that the WAC is amongst the best Coached conferences in college football. As a young player wishing to hone his craft this would be one of the critical factors that I would take into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 2, 2008 6:49:50 GMT -6
As one poster noted, this had nothing to do with scheme. UG's defensive line was just too fast for UH. You can't hide that or scheme it for too long.
JJ will not leave UH. He is a rare breed. He made a conscious choice to take the UH job nine years ago. He understands that the budget will probably not change that much, nor will the facilities. They just don't have the resources. What people need to understand, though, is this has nothing to do with scheme. The R&S has the ability to handle schematically what UG did. If they had the talent that Texas Tech has (and I am not conflating the two programs from a schematic point of departure) they would have been in much better shape.
Regarding the types of kids that UH recruits, this is what they have to do. I've been there twice and they do a wonderful job of creating a family type of atmosphere. Most of the mainland kids they have are ones that other programs have passed over for personal reasons; however, they really do not have that many; the island kids are remarkable people with outstanding character. They seem to use this as a means to create a type of atmosphere that cultivates a family dynamic that provides the "problem" kids with an atmosphere that they never had before.
What I don't understand is why a kid would not want to play at UH if he is a 5 star prospect. From a climate perspective, the islands are MUCH better than the urban hole where USC is located; moreover, you are going to get outstanding coaching. Their staff is excellent. JJ is arguably one of the finest QB/offensive gurus in the country who is a fabulous teacher of the game, as is Greg McMackin on the defensive side of the ball. One would think that responsible high school coaches would be telling their kids this. For that matter, I've never understood why a H.S. quarterback, for example, would not choose UH or Texas Tech over Georgia, Florida, etc. You are learning the skills needed to excell at the next level. Especially if you are a QB, offensive lineman, or receiver.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 26, 2007 5:27:56 GMT -6
It's all about loyalty. We preach absolute loyalty to the program and the program should be expected to show the same to those that make it go - the players. People who have never participated in a team activity such as football don't get this concept; they don't understand the idea that there is something greater than themselves. I am no longer coaching and am currently a scholar at a major Big 10 university and I can tell you that many of my collegues are spineless guttersnipes who would sell out their own mother if it served their purpose. For the most part, you don't see that in people that have played team sports that stress the collective. Most members of the media fall into this category.
However, I agree with one of the other posters. Unfortunately, when take the media you are going to lose. They always have the chalk last. Nonetheless, you will win where it matters - with your people.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 25, 2007 5:48:27 GMT -6
For the most part the media consists of a bunch of weavels who are nothing more than professional gossipers. Rarely do they know much about what they are talking about. Tony Kornheiser is a perfect example - a man who makes a good living talking, passing judgment on, and commentating on something about which he knows absolutely nothing. Kudos to Mike Gundy.
|
|