|
Post by hemlock on Nov 25, 2007 18:41:37 GMT -6
I respect your mastery over the "facts" but we need to read between the lines. All budgets in the Big 12 are big, that is not really at issue any more. Some are gigantic. I don't think you need that to be a truly dominant program. Look at the Yankees in MLB.
I've seen Osborne's conference and I have actually coached against him. He is a great coach and I think he handled the situation with class. That is not at issue. What is at issue is that dominant programs of the future will not be dynasties. The very fact that kids want to play at Boise State, Hawai'i, or Kansas tells us that the metric has changed. I don't think that you will see truly dominant programs or truly horrible ones for that matter. It's easier today for programs such as Temple or Buffalo that were once doormats to make progress and compete with the big boys. Just look at the leap that both of the aforementioned programs have made in a single year. What is happened is that programs such as 'Bama, Nebraska, etc are not all that "special" in and of themselves - its the game of college football that is superceded individual programs.
Also, I don't think you can compare college football to either high school or youth. Both are community centered; you coach and develop what your community offers. Some places are more loaded than others. You can't bring kids to your district like you can in college ball.
The question about attitude is interesting and very revealing. I don't think hitting in practice necessarily makes a team more physical. This is what Osborne and McCartney and guys from their generation know an believe in. That's fine; however, many successful programs don't buy into it to such a degree. See Dennis Erickson, a coach whose college pedigree is beyond reproach. It's clear that Osborne wants a guy who buys into what he believes Nebraska's identity should be. That's great and its his right. My only problems, and its just my opinion, is that I don't believe that the premise of changing the NU football culture (not the tradition) was itself such a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 25, 2007 9:13:53 GMT -6
I don't want this to degenerate into "fan-talk." So lets put our venom aside ever so briefly and just understand a couple facts: Nebraska will never be what it was - PERIOD. Neither will Alabama, Miami, or any other storied powerhouse. They will still have the prestige and name that goes with being a traditional program, but the beauty of parity has made boring dominance a thing of the past. Nebraska will, I'm sure, have great teams in the future, but they will also have painfully mediocre teams. It will not be because of the new coach, but just because of the nature of the college landscape these days. The Big 12 North is quickly becoming a very good conference again. KU will not got away, and neither will MU. CU is on the rise and so is KSU. This will be a very good division next year and for years to come. The division is chocked full of excellent coaches who are building programs for the long haul. NU will have to contend with that and simply being NU will no longer be enough. Having coached in the Big 12 for six years I've visited each campus and town, not simply on road trips, but also during the recruiting period. I'm not cracking on NU, but there are plenty places in the BIG 12 that are better than both Lincoln and NU. Sure, tradition is nice, but many of today's student athletes are looking for at other things as well. NU is nice and so is Lincoln, but as a kid I might be more impressed with Boulder or Lawrence. Just objective thoughts. Not saying that one is simply better than the other.
Today's kids are as impressed with "tradition" as they once were. For many, its a distant concept that exists in an even more temporally remote "epic" past. These are all things that are making it harder for "traditional" powerhouses to simply rake in the players like they did.
BTW, KU and MU have both invested heavily over the past decade in football. KU's facilities have been excellent since Mason was there and MU invested heavily in them during Larry Smith's tenure. KU is currently building a new complex near the stadium that will house only the football program with three adjoining full length practice fields. So, the long and the short of it is that the money is there at these programs to compete in the facilities arms race of college football.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 22, 2007 3:41:11 GMT -6
Don't overcoach your kids. My first high school job came after I had already coached DIA as a GA. I was delusional in terms of what my expectations were of my players and other coaches. Sure I new a lot more football than those around me, but I had forgotten that all the X's and O's don't amount to a hill of beans when neither your assistants, nor players had the time or the means to absorb everything you wanted to teach. I became a much better coach after my first year in high school, especially since I was at an inner city school with little football tradition.
One thing I learned about coaching high school ball. In most non-southern states where the game is unfortunately not as much a part of the culture, your assistant coaches are often only one half step ahead of the players. If your assistants can't master what you want to implement than that is a good indicator that your kids won't either.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 25, 2007 20:18:46 GMT -6
There is certain insecurity running through the above post. Yes, scholarship reductions have been around for 20 years, but the effects are only now starting to be fully felt throughout the landscape of college football. It's similar to Bush's signature education reform bill - NCLBH - if you want to call it reform. The full effects of this bill will not be felt for at least a generation.
I have no doubt that Nebraska will find a fine HC, if they do decide can Callahan, which I'm not sure would be a good move. Remember Kentucky and Rich Brooks. The yahoos, and yes they were and still are yahoos, wanted to can him two years ago. Mitch Barnhardt rode the storm out. Oh, and please, don't give the "we are Nebraska" bit. It's old, painfully cliche, and irrelavant to the conversation at hand. Does it really matter if the guy you get is from DI or DII? Absolutely not. In reality, coaching ball at the lower levels is harder than in upper echelons. You have to do more with less. Moreover, let's agree that Bohl was not a good DC. The numbers as Dave has noted bear that out; however, the skills one needs to be a great HC are not necessarily commensurate with those required to be a great DC. (Note, I'm not advocating that Bohl get the job.) Also, he did not cost Solich his job. I mentioned befoe and will repeat it again, Nebraska was a different team under Solich, particularly on offense. Most Big 12 guys would agree that under Solich they seemed to lose some of their punch on offense, began to rely too much on the option, and veared (no pun intended) away from power stuff that set up their outside game so well in the past. Plus, they were soft. They did not scare anybody. Those are not just my views, but those most guys that coached against NU during Solich's tenure.
This should be an intelligent conversation. Not schoolyard brawl in which coaches throw other coaches under the bus no matter how much they may dislike them, their philosophy, personality, etc. The impression I get after reading some posts is that their is some immense monolithic "I" who dictating the thoughts of the masses in Lincoln. Perhaps this is just false impression, but the complete lack of objectivity suggests that a lack of critical distance on the part of some individuals. Althought this is clearly not the most important thread on this post, it should nonetheless be informative and educational. Let's try to keep the subjective rants to a minimum. As coaches we often bemoan the criticism of ignorant fans who know nothing of our craft. Are we no better?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 25, 2007 15:36:51 GMT -6
Yes, the rules have changed. The landscape of college football is finally starting to change due to scholarship limitations. Although there will still be elite programs, such as USC, and I name them only because of the tremendous natural advantages they have for recruiting, parody has already had an effect on numerous programs, including Nebraska. Does that mean that Nebraska will not be great. Absolutely not; however, I do not believe they will ever be like they were before on such a consistent year in and year out basis. And let's face it, this is actually good for college football.
BTW, I would disagree with you about what type of a guy is Bill Callahan. Maybe he's not your cup of tea, but met him on a number of occasions and always walked away quite impressed. Does that mean that he is necessarily the right guy for NU? I'm not sure. To some degree I understand the reservations that many have about implementing his brand of the WCO at the college level. Its extremely sophisticated. Having coached on a staff that tried to implement Bill Walsh's version of the WCO offense at the DI level I understand that it may not be a good fit.
Perhaps Callahan is just not a good fit. Okay, but then who is? I would be really leary of hiring anybody who is too tightly tied to the past. Alabama is finally excaping with Saban from under the shadow of the Bear, and Michigan clearly has suffered from Bo's presence. If I were Osborne I would after I make the hire I declare that it the HIRE"S program then ride off into the sunset.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 25, 2007 6:13:51 GMT -6
Yes, Osborne is not Steinbrenner, but I would not want to coach under his legacy. He is not what I would worry about; rather, its bizarre expectations that Nebraska people have that are as I noted before just a hair shy of those at Alabama.
Tradition is great. I'm not knocking tradition, values, or anything like that. But, tradition can also be a loadstone that in certain situations keeps you back, or prevents you from writing the next chapter in your history. Florida has great tradition, but note that they did not hire somebody who was pure Spurrier descendent. Even Zook who coached for Spurrier made it clear tha he was going to do things differently and Urban Meyer is clearly not a part of the Spurrier legacy. I think its great that the people in Nebraska have such a special relationship with their program, but by the same token they need to understand that the rules of the game have changed completely. Like I noted earlier, I coached against Osborne's teams as well as Solich's and drop off between the kids recruited during Dr. Tom's time and those that Solich recruited was tremendous. Nebraska was still good, but their kids were not nearly as talented as those that they brought in before. Hence, Nebraska decline began way before Callahan arrived.
Although I have tremendous respect for Osborne, I think that we should all remembe that this guy is not pure as the driven snow. Although NU fans would like to believe that he was beyond reproach, like all coaches Osborne made some very questionable calls regarding players. NU folks can yap all they want about Dr. Tom giving him a chance to help him with his life, but people know that he was a problem that should never have been touched. Does this tarnish his legacy? No, but you cannot pretend that it never happened nor can you overlook the numerous other "problem" children who had off field incidents that the Nebraska faithful conveniently looked the other way on.
Also, why not Mike Leach? Does his philosophy, personality, "faith" (you know he is a Mormon), or just overall being not jive with Nebraska culture? Leach is a brilliant coach and even though he chucks the ball all over the yard its not like its the WCO. The Airraid an inverted wishbone that albeit nuanced is not very complex.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 23, 2007 20:11:47 GMT -6
Just a quick point. We are all coaches or have been coaches on this board. I'm dissappointed that some people here are jumping on Callahan when he is down. We've all been there and we should all know better.
Nebraska fans must understand that the rules of the game have changed. I coached at Kansas when Osborne was at NU during the 90's and he got out at the perfect time. From the time he left, the talent level plummeted tremendously. Parity has changed things tremendously. I believe that the decision to can Solich was in reality a good one. Understandably given the expectations that are just a hair shy of Alabama's nobody wanted the job. I give Callahan credit for taking the challenge. Does that mean that he has not made mistakes? Absolutely not. Clearly, he has to make some changes on the defensive side of the ball. Did he rub some of the faithful the wrong way? Yes, and that's a shame, but with a strong A.D. and university President in his corner that really does not mean much. The yahoos are going to think what they want anyway. Look at Kentucky. Rich Brooks was clearly not a fan favorite, but Mitch Barnhart with the president's backing chose to stick by his man. They did not cave in to popular desires.
I agree with an earlier poster. Osborne is now a near mytho-poetic character around whom there is a cult of personality. The NU President showed how gutless he is by bringing him back. This is not to say that Osborne is not compitent. He sure is; however, to move forward you sometimes have to cut ties with the past. This is one of those situations.
Callahan's and Pederson's problems are more cultural than professional. This is a sad fact. Remember the movie "HOOSIERS" with Gene Hackman and how his character was treated by the locals when he tried to change things. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 17, 2007 16:51:03 GMT -6
With all do respect, I disagree with the above postings. Not that Dr. Tom is not a legend, but the fact is that Pederson did make the right long-term call for Nebraska football when fired Solich. Yes, Solich was 9-3 and had some fine seasons, but you simply cannot beat the big boys playing the type of football that he advocated. If you are going to run the option and play consistently with the big boys you have to do it out of some type of a spread concept.
Also, Osborne got out at the right time. It has taken about ten years for the effects of scholarship reductions to really have an impact but they are now. Osborne would never have the type of success today as he had before.
Yes, I know that UN has hit a bit of a rough patch, but Bill Callahan is a fine, fine football coach and at some level I would argue that he is a far more progressive coach than what Nebraska has ever had in the past. Changing the culture of a program and a state is very hard and to judge someone and his program on a tough patch is a bad thing. I know the Chancellor hired Osborne so that he could bring the Athletic Department together and talk to the boosters. That's fine, but its not going to change things for the better in the long haul. Nebraska cannot go back to the past. Osborne, who is very diplomatic, will fire Callahan at the end of the season; he is not a proponent of Callahan's style of football. In the end, and I may be wrong, I believe that this will set the program back even further. My advice would be to let Callahan right the ship; remember, last year they got things rolling - did he forget how to coach? Obviously, the answer is no.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 25, 2007 9:42:49 GMT -6
My intent was not to diminish RR's innovative contributions. He clearly got the ball rolling so to say. My point was simply to note that Northwestern really cleaned up the run game. I remember watching game film of Clemson when Dantzler was there and it was very clear that as a group they were much more comfortable in pass pro. When the ran the zone play they stretched laterally, but hardly ever got up to the second level. Moreover, their trap and counter game was very soft. When they ran the ball effectively it was essentially out of empty with Dantzler - lot's of QB's draws and sweeps. Furthermore, there was just a different type of mentality at the Northwestern practices. They were up tempo, no-huddle, in fact their discipline enabled them to play at much faster rate, but up front they were extremely aggressive, sharp, and disciplined. I think that this is a mentality that Trickett brought to RR's offense when he went to WV.
When Northwestern's passing game began to flutter it was because teams like Ohio state essentially rolled the SS into the boundary to create a true 4-4 look. This also negated their zone play since they always wanted to run away from the 3-tech and towards either shade or 1tech. The 44 essentially negated their numeral advantage into the boundary and forced them in furture years to expand under Mike Dunbar the passing game. If you look at Northwestern now they run lots of true spread mixed with compressed formations.
Sorry to ramble. Again, I was not trying to diminish the considerable impact that RR has had on the tactical landscape of college football.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 25, 2007 8:36:16 GMT -6
I was fortunate to be exposed to Rodriguez's spread at a very early juncture in its development. I don't want to re-route praise away from RR, but I think it would be helpful to understand that the offense's identity as a run based system really began to take hold at Northwestern. I learned the basics of RR's spread when he was at Tulane and then spent some more time one spring at Clemson. At this point the offense was still a passing system. The run game, albeit effective with an athletic QB was to be very honest with everybody quite sloppy, particularly in the power zone game. Kevin Wilson and the Northwestern staff after Randy Walker's first year visited Clemson and learned the basics of the offense. They significantly cleaned the run game. I visited them as well and they believed that they were running basic "I" formation running plays from the gun, which in fact they were. There run game was much tighter, downhill, and aggressive than Rodriguez's was at Clemson. Clemson's oline was passive and rarely got any type of a push. Northwestern was the first team to really run the ball with a traditional downhill, 2-back mentality from the gun with Zack Kustock. RR's run game became much more productive when he got to WV, in part thanks to Trickett.
Although RR's offense was once rooted in the Run-n-Shoot, the principles guiding their passing game are much more simple. Their passing game has always been premised on half-filed, A-B type reads, and clear vertical stems. This is why the second year that Northwestern ran the spread they had problems in their passing game. Their splits were so wide they could not run shallows and crossers effectively.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 11, 2007 9:45:41 GMT -6
Interesting response. I think you make a number of very good points; however, coaches talk to one another so you don't have to be from Nebraska to know the story.
I think your point about player development is probably right on target. Charlie Weis has had the same problem.
Now I'm sure that your sources have good points, but I've spoken with a number of very fine coaches throughout the Big 12 who would not agree with you on whether he is a capable coach. One guy described BC as "cool, cerebral guy with very sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the game." Personally, as a coach I find that very attractive - but I won't say that it translates well into all situations.
The point about physical practices is being overplayed. Have you ever seen a Dennis Erickson practice. Most of the his kids are either in shells or simply helmets and shorts. His teams are traditionally very physical and fresh. Spends most of his time in practice teaching technique. Again, I think this is much sophisticated and progressive way of coaching.
Pelini may be the front runner, but I'm not sure that I would want him being the public face of my program.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 11, 2007 7:49:52 GMT -6
Dave: Could you please in an objective and clinical fashion explain why guys from the pros do not "get" the college game. Most coaches do not doubt that both Callahan and Weis can coach football successfully. If possible, could you please refrain from the personal, vitrolic laden assualts on Callahan. Address only this question: why can a guy who clearly knows football (whether you personally like his style is not the issue here) and has been successful in a variety of capacities throughout his career in both pro and college ball fail as an HC?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 5, 2007 4:54:09 GMT -6
Coachjerk is absolutely right. UK fans, although they should be dissappointed about last night's loss, should nonetheless recognize the tremendous job that Rich Brooks has done. UK is one of the best coached teams in the SEC. The problem is that you can only hide some of their problems on "D" with smoke and mirrors for so long. With time that too will change.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 14, 2007 8:19:03 GMT -6
I don't want to simply sing to the choir or reiterate the obvious, but Rich Brooks and Kentucky shown everybody (ADs in particular) why a coach should be given the full term of his contract to turn a program around. I've been following UK from afar ever since he got the job because I have known that he is a tremendous football coach. Period. Excellent teacher, leader of young men, etc. UK is an extremely well coached football team. It reinforces the fact that the best coaches in a conference are rarely those at the purely elite programs. Before he passed away, I always told friends and fans that Randy Walker was the best coach in the Big 10 because of his ability to compete and win with less than stellar talent. Rich Brooks has always been a great coach; he KNEW that if given the time to do things the right way that he would turn the UK program around. By the way, I would argue that in the SEC the best coach, the one who gets the most out of his talent week in and week out is Vanderbilt's Bobby Johnson.
Also, just want to say a few words about UK's offense. This is a very simple, yet extremely well conceived offense. The passing is premised off of vertical stems; they are one of the few teams that I have seen that get vertical, yet manages to protect the QB. You can tell that unlike some staffs Kentucky centers everything around pass pro.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Apr 2, 2008 17:11:29 GMT -6
I fear that this discussion could degenerate very quickly into something entirely unproductive. Nonetheless, I will offer my two cents.
I appreciate Coach Cisar's comments, but I suspect that he is trying to find support for his belief that Callahan, Cosgrove, and Watson are degenerate coaches and that Osborn is a sage regardless of the time during which coached and the conditions that influenced the landscape of college ball during that epoch.
OK, I agree, Callahan did not work out. That does not mean that he, nor Cosgrove are bad coaches, or that they do not deserve the opportunity to lead programs and units in the future. They both earned their proverbial spurs a long time ago and are well respected by football men across the country. This is not really an opinion, but a fact. Maybe the Husker nation disagrees, and I am not questioning their right to do so, but that is more of a fan thing than a coaching thing. Most would agree that Callahan, and this is a valid reason for not hiring someone in the first place, was simply a bad fit for the culture of Nebraska football.
This brings me to my major point. As important as scheme, player relations, etc, is the degree to which the prospective coach fits the culture of the program that he is being hired to lead. I was part of a staff that got fired nearly ten years ago from a rather large Big East institution. Currently, I am the only member of the staff who is not in the NFL, and I chose to get out of football when I did to pursue a career in academia. Now, nobody can question the credentials of these coaches. These are all outstanding teachers, clinicians, etc, but we were a bad fit for the school. Administrative issues aside, we were perceived as professorial, white-collar, aloof, etc. In many ways, faced many of the same issues that Obama faces with blue-collar white voters in PA in terms of perception. Consequently, we were never able to recruit our in-state kids. When we were fired, the administration did the right thing by hiring a guy who understood the culture of the community, the state, etc and there has been no looking back. The upshot of this is that in many instances it is these off the field type things that are just as important as the on field stuff. Culturally, Pelini, is a much better fit than Callahan for Nebraska. I have no doubt that he will succeed, but he will succeed not because of his schemes, but because he, unlike his predecessor, will to some degree embrace the traditions of the program he leads and the culture of which he is now a part.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 21, 2008 8:06:03 GMT -6
Okay, this the last thing that I will say about this because the points been made. First, I think everybody knows that Norm Chow was named OC at UCLA. That should be interesting.
As many people have noted, the NFL is unfortunately a players' league and when you have as much money invested in one player, the coach always loses. Chow's firing reminds of how Bill Cowher fired Kevin Gilbride. Cowher hires Gilbride to whip Kordell Stewart into shape. After one season, Cowher fires Gilbride because he and Stewart clashed. Culturally, the Steelers under Cowher and the Titans with Fisher are similar organizations that both place a premium on physical talent. The Titans have a long history of drafting QBs that are not the brightest. Steve McNair is warrior, but nobody will ever confuse him with either Peyton or Brady intellectually. All jokes aside, there is a reason why he went to Alcorn State. Young's Wonderlic score should have raised some eyebrows within the organization; however, in all fairness, those test like most standardized tests measure absolutely nothing. I'm in hight education and believe me, kids with high SAT scores and grad students with high GRE results routinely are the dumbest kids in class. That said, what the Titans should have done with Young was track down faculty at UT-Austin that had him in class. That would have been most revealing.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 17, 2008 19:20:49 GMT -6
All the points here are good. I think that collectively we have managed to make this a solid football discussion that is relevant to coaches and not just a piece of gossip.
The problem is that for people like Vick and Young what we seemingly (collectively as coaches) are avoiding the true crux of the matter. It's really not about leadership, but ability, that is to say, intellectual ability. Yes, Vick had horrible leadership qualities, but the real problem was between his ears. Young actually has charisma and the desire to be a leader and an overall good guy, but the same problem applies - he simply is not the brightest bulb in the box. Does that mean that with HARD work and determination he cannot master his craft? Of course not. I had a dreadfully low SAT & GRE score and I now teach at UW-Madison. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I burn the midnight oil. Will a guy like Young or Vick do such a thing when people have acknowledged in the past is good enough to win with? Probably not. This is why I would never have banked my Franchise on him, let alone recruit him as a QB in college. If I have to teach you that it is your responsibility to be in the film room every morning at 5:30 AM there is something fundamentally wrong with you. I know for a fact that more than anything else this is what drove Norm Chow up the wall with VY. Unlike his other QBs, Chow, from what I've been told, had to actually explain to Young that it was his responsibility to in effect be a coach on the field. That's especially disturbing.
In the NFL I don't think that a staff should have to resort to an offense predicated upon IZ/OZ in order to set up the boot/waggle so that you can shrink the field for the QB. The fact that in his one start Kevin Kolb looked more impressive in the pocket in less than one year than VY does tells me something about the latter's approach to the game. Consequently, there is no offense for such an individual.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 17, 2008 6:27:56 GMT -6
I would disagree about the initial statement regarding Vick and Young. Vick was never a particularly good QB in either the pros or college. In the pros he was a spectacularly inefficient QB who demonstrated a extremely poor command of the offense. In college, and I coached against VT when he played, he was a spectacular athlete, but not really a QB. I don't having one read, the boundary X at that, playing the position.
The same goes for Young.
One poster wrote that he believes that if Tebow does not make it in the NFL that that would spell the end of the spread in college. Not true. I think most look at Tebow now and see that he will have an uphill climb at the next level. Myer and Dan Mullen will work more with him than Mack Brown and Greg Davis did with young at UT and certainly more than Beamer and Ricky Bustle did with Vick at VT, but they will try to turn him into something that he is not. Tebow will never be Graham Harrel. Not because he is not bright, but because it is just not in his blood.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 16, 2008 16:30:27 GMT -6
I think that for coaches this should serve as a lesson. When hiring a coordinator, particularly on the offensive side of the ball, look at his past history. That is to say, look at where and with what type of kids did he have success with. I think that responded viscerally to Chow's firing, because, although did not get fired, I was in a similar type of a situation. This was also my fault because I accepted the job and should have known better. During my career, I had always worked with smart, overachieving type kids at both the college and high school level. All the sudden I entered an arena with an entirely different culture. Yes, the kids were more gifted physically, but they neither smart nor driven. If you look at Chow's history, you see that he has coached smart kids at every place. All of his QBs were students of the game first. Fisher should have taken this into consideration when he was thinking about hiring Chow and later when drafting VY. The question he should have asked is can his approach to the game (not just in terms of Xs and Os, but in terms of people) work with the guy that my franchise is committed to.
As one poster noted, I think that the Titans will spend the next five years trying to make Young a consistent QB and will most likely fail.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 16, 2008 6:37:33 GMT -6
I would disagree with the above statement. Chow was hired initially to implement his system. Fisher never permitted him to do that.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 15, 2008 17:24:44 GMT -6
This was a management decision. I have contacts who have worked with Chow and for the past two years they have suggested in passing that their were problems. Chow was not allowed in the war room on draft day because he essentially sold Fisher before on his argument against VY; Reese wanted Young and so did Bud Adams.
It has absolutely nothing to do with schemes. Word is that VY has a very slow learning curve and is not a particularly apt pupil. People that I have spoken to from UT have told me that he lack fluid intellegance; that is, he can memorize a play in one formation, but if you change the formation or personnel and run the same play he sees it as a different play. He does not understand concepts that underpin route packages; Chow's entire system is premised upon concepts. At UT he had a very simple A-B read off of a single defender to a pre-determined side. Chow's system is predicated upon reading triangles - some times progression of the triangle changes based coverage, as we all know. I've also heard that Chow tried to work with VY"s mechanics, but was essentially told to that alone. In a previous thread I passed along another coach's comments about VY"s mechanics and how difficult they would be to iron out. He told me that to do it properly it would probably take about two years. Titans want results now, but the problem is that for every shallow or flare VY completes, he misses the next to because his footwork is absolutely dreadful. If you read into Chow's comments, he noted that regardless of who his successor is it will take time to fix what is wrong and that it will require a lot of paitience.
Herein lies the problem of drafting athletes like VY. Remember that Michael Vick got three very good QB coaches, including Jack Burns, fired in Atlanta. VY is a coach killer. Frankly, if I had been Chow I would have resigned the minute the drafted him. Sure there is a lot to like about him, but there have always been a lot of disturbing things about him. I asked Greg Davis at the the National Coaches Convention how much time VY spent in the film room - he smiled and changed the subject. I asked Mike Leach how much time Graham Harrel spends watching film - at the football complex before some of the coaches. Guess who I want feeding my kids?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 1, 2008 8:35:15 GMT -6
It was very scaled down, but the fact that the offense is so simple allowed him to put the nuts and bolts of the package.
Tuberville made a decision akin to one I made when I was last coaching HS. We had a kid who was incredibly mobile, not too terribly bright, but with a very good arm, but not the requisite footwork to operate directly behind center. Franklin, who if given his way, would much rather air the ball out, will nonetheless exploit Burns' running ability. I believe the move to Franklin is designed to get the most out of Burns the quickest, without actually having to rework his entire game; the nice thing about Franklin's system or version of the Air Raid (Leach would have none of Burns, mind you) is that he will adapt the system to fit the skills of his people. Burns in Borges' system, and I think this is what motivated Tuberville more than anything else, would be a disaster, almost like Brent Schaffer at Ole Miss.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 28, 2007 7:07:11 GMT -6
They will not run the Air-Raid in the bowl-game.
However, Tuberville is a smart man. He hired Franklin to run his system. Remember, since Tubeville fired Noel Mazzone he has been through two additional offensive coordinators. People forget that Mazzone was a 1-back spread guy and was instrumental in developing the scat concept with Norm Chow at NC State a few years back. It's now a staple of the Jets red zone package.
I'm sure that Tuberville knows what he is getting with Franklin. Franklin is a savvy coach and business man who was not going to sell out without getting what he wants. Tuberville understands, I'm sure, that you hire Franklin for a purpose; he's not going to shackle him.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 17, 2007 17:07:36 GMT -6
Coach Huey makes an excellent point - the Wishbone is simply a formation, nothing else. Conversely, the option is a philosophy. When I last coached (6 years ago) we ran the Spread before it become really popular. We ran Inside Veer, Outside Veer - the same thing that made the old Bill Yeoman veer go.
I think one reason why besides the virtues of 4 and 5 Hot of the Option out of the Spread is the fact that it is easier to coach. The footwork for the QB is much easier - even in the passing game. Also, if anybody saw UNLV play Wisconsin 2 weeks ago, they ran out of empty 1/3 of the time. Once they established the option nobody blitzed them. Thus getting five out into the patter from empty is no longer a problem.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 4, 2008 10:22:55 GMT -6
That's the point. KU was better prepared. They are very well coached team. In many ways they embody the core values of football - teamwork, unselfishness, etc. Every player on that team has submitted to the system. They understand their roles.
Regarding VT's offensive problems, they have never been a well coached unit. Very basic and remedial. Going back to the Ricky Bustle days on offense, Beamer has never sought stray from the type of football he knows. This is fine, but great coaches learn to re-invent themselves. Consider Gary Pinkel at MU. Hardly a spread guy, but he realized that this was perhaps a better way of playing football.
I'm not trying to sing an ode to KU or anything. It's just that they play as a complete team. I would agree with spreadattack. For those wishing to learn the spread offense, I would visit KU. However, we should all note that their spread is a particularl type of spread. They really don't run a lot of option, or at least inside and outside veer, or zone read from the gun. Similar to Northwestern from a number of years ago, they are pretty basic in terms of what they do scheme wise. The key though is that Reesing is a perfect point-guard for this offense.
Their passing game is predicated on option routes with flare control, post-dig combos, and the very rare shallow. Most of their concepts are premised upon vertical stems. Also, they do a nice job with stacked formations. They are also a very good Smash team. They run lots of Smash concepts from different packages and launch points.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 4, 2008 9:46:03 GMT -6
I think Frank Beamer is great guy, but he has never impressed me as a great football mind. He is a great fundies coach, which I believe accounts for a lot of his success; however, his inability to truly adapt on offense over the years is disturbing.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 4, 2008 7:36:06 GMT -6
Yes, KU was hardly a juggernaut on offense. But that's not the point. They play a very smart brand of football, which is something that we as coaches should really appreciate.
I coached against VT when I was in the Big East and to be completely honest with you, special teams aside, they have never impressed me from a schematic point of view. They have always relied on talent. They are not a particularly innovative or creative staff, particularly on offense. They clearly had superior athletes last night, but KU was just close enough athletically to take them out of their comfort zone. KU's offense was hardly spectacular, but it was good enough. The bottomline is that although VT was a better team physically, the gap between them and KU, albeit large enough to prevent KU from looking pretty, was not so large that it could prevent a team that is smarter both on the field, on the sidelines, and in the booth from winning.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 4, 2008 6:43:17 GMT -6
BTW - there is good read on KU's victory on collegefootball.com. He underscores something that I have been saying for a while. Football is a cerebral game, especially now. KU was smarter on the field and on the sidelines than VT. Not only do they play a more philosophically progressive style of football than VT, but their kids play much smarter. KU's kids are akin to the type of players that Belichek has brought into New England. These kids understand their role and function in the system.
Also, what I fail to understand is why some people seem to be writing elegies for the death of smashmouth football. Although it may appeal to certain facets of the male ego, i.e. the desire to physically dominate, it really is quite silly and retrograde intellectually. Although not terribly effective, KU's use of exotic looks forces teams to waste time preparing for them in practice.
What KU does offensively is really not that different from what Northwestern ran with Zack Kustock. In fact they even run it almost the same upbeat tempo.
Also, did anybody notice the way KU plays fundemental defense. Even when they got abused by Missouri, KU's players are always in position to make plays. This is not a coincidence. In practice they run many of the same pursuit and ball drills that Kiffen runs with the Bucs. Consequently, regardless of where the ball is distributed they always have triangles with which to make the stop.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 4, 2008 6:18:51 GMT -6
As a guy who lived in Lawrence for 12 years, coached at KU, and taught at KU I cannot tell you how big this season is for the program. Ever since Bob Frederick left as AD, KU has gradually been doing the things necessary to become a football school. This is not a slam against b-ball, which will always be huge there, but the economics of athletics dictates that KU be a player in football.
Mangino was on the hotseat, but he has done an excellent job since he has gotten there. Lou Perkins has been looking to fire him because Mangino was not his hire; however, MM has always done just well enough to save himself. This season changes everything. For the first time, MM and his staff will be able to recruite with a marqee season behind them.
In all honesty, there is no reason why KU should not be a football power. It is a great school with a phenomenal campus - one of the most picturesque in the nation and located in a wonderful community. Sure, HS football in Kansas is not great, but the school, campus, and facilities are there to attract top tier talent. Of all the schools in the Big 12, I think only CU perhaps has a better campus - maybe UT, as well.
What will help them is that MM wants to stay at KU. When I was there we had a breakthrough year that was overshadowed in part by GM's iniital desire to go to Georgia, which totally killed what was shaping up to be a bumber recruiting class.
BTW, one thing that has always hurt KU, particularly in regards to Kansas State are academics. KU is a very good school and does not have a lot of places to hide academically/intellectually challenged players. Academic support has improved immensely, but its not like the have places for players with special education needs like some programs.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 21, 2007 8:07:29 GMT -6
At the HS level, unfortunately, most HCs need to coordinate at least one side of the ball. From my experience this is due primarily to the lack of quality coaches on most HS staffs, particularly those outside of the deep south and Texas. Most HSs are lucky to have an HC who is a quality football man and one quality assistant who understands that this is a 12 month job. Unfortunately, most guys who coach football at he HS level are doing it because they can pick up a few extra bucks, get free gear, or believe that they are having a positive impact. These are the guys who just show up, loiter about the practice field pretending to coach, and say the most innane things during the few meetings they attend. They are also hucksters that are the first to say: "I have to leave right after practice b/c of my wife, girl-friend, or kid." As I have noted in other threads, this is why I got out of coaching high school ball. Most guys just to understand that even as position coaches they have to think about their unit a miniumum of 5 days a week; coordinator 6; HC 7 days and that the offseason is just as rigorous as the season. I remembered when I coached HS as a coordinator I told my assistants that they would have to review, regrade, and evaluate their positions based on film from all the games, write up a report, and be prepared to discuss it during our weekly staff meeting. They all nearly quit. I was amazed that they would not look forward to this activity and view it as a means of becoming a better coach and taking ownership of their unit. This is why most HCs have to sub as a coordinator. Its also why in many regions of the country why traditionally weak programs remain weak.
|
|