Coaches' timeouts are worse. Basketball teams should get one, full stop.
- Member for
- 3 years 37 weeks
|3 years 4 weeks ago||My IQ just dropped 10 points||
My IQ just dropped 10 points watching that. Thanks.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||Amen, although that stuffed||
Amen, although that stuffed animal thing was totally bizarre. I would love to know the inside story on that someday
|3 years 7 weeks ago||More on "coaching fit"||
When I said coaching fit, it wasn't meant to be an excuse. I agree -- in the end, it was about wins and loses, with the emphasis primarily on how bad those loses were.
However, I lived in West Virginia during the Nehlen -- Rodriguez transition and got to watch it firsthand. Most people don't realize that it was very similar to what transpired at UM. Nehlen (who coached under Bo) ran a traditional power running offense. Rodriguez had similar problems (seen in his win/loss record) transitioning the program.
The difference was that Rodriguez had the "Hoke effect" there. He was a local guy. I think he was on staff at one time under Nehlen, too.
Coaching fit is not an excuse, but a good fit induces patience in the fanbase, boosters and college administration during a transition. Also, the Big East is IMO a lesser conference than the Big 10. I honestly don't think Rodriguez's lineman recruits and development would have worked in the Big 10. What should have been our strength this year (O-line and D-line) were inadequate versus good competition. Even Mississipi State pushed us around.
|3 years 7 weeks ago||My opinion||
My opinion is that it's both simple and complicated depending on your perspective.
If I look at it simply, a good football coach is one who has a vision of what his program is. To that end he develops and inspires players towards that vision, with a particular emphasis on fundamentals (blocking, tackling, execution, maintaining assignments, avoiding turnovers and penalties, etc.)
If I look at complicated, it involves all of the above but also adds being a good "fit" for a given college/university (don't underestimate this -- ask Rodriguez), being good with politics, the media and schoozing the boosters and such. And then he also has to be a good recruiter and know the NCAA laws, bylaws, etc.
It's not easy being a good coach these days, especially with the "win NOW" mentality.
|3 years 8 weeks ago||El Jefe, in response ...||
Let me preface this by saying I'm still on the fence with Hoke. If he wins, great. If not, I won't be surprised given his lack of resume and, well, sophistication.
Yes, I did get the sense that Rodriguez did not emphasize attitude, toughness and playing smart. Our 2010 O-line, the so-called strength of last year's team, got manhandled against every good team. We got totally manhandled in the bowl game as well -- no push, no holes, no protection. With the exception of Demens, Kovacs and Vinopal, tacking was a luxury, not the norm. Tackling is about technique and grit. You either have the desire to take that pain and go low with a good angle or you don't. These guys should have been tested and culled from the beginning on that. I got no indication that the majority of our defense wanted to tackle. That has nothing to do with class status (freshman to senior). I've seen teams, even Carr teams, full of seniors that couldn't tackle.
Playing sophomores and freshman was not an acceptable excuse for total defensive ineptitude. Yes, Carr was responsible for some of that but Rodriguez lost way too many players to "attrition" than is normal and acceptable. I suspect his ego (i.e., "my way or the highway") was above the interests of the program. While it is too early to know, contrast Hoke's initial actions thus far to those of Rodriguez. Hoke (although certainly driven in part by Branon) seems to be doing everything possible to mend fences with the fans, media and, especially, the players. I believe he realizes he needs every player.
|3 years 8 weeks ago||Fundamental football||
Here is my opinion from someone who grew up playing football under a father who likewise played football. I'm 37 now and began watching UM in the mid 1980's (my family bleeds maze and blue).
It seems most at this website support Rodriguez. I did as well initially. However, the overwhelming evidence pointed to a lack of emphasis on good fundamentals (blocking, tackling, toughness, attitude, playing smart, not fumbling, etc.).
Most fans get consumed by the schemes. Regardless of whether it's a single wing, wing-T, spread, pro-set or option, football remains, to paraphrase Lombardi, blocking and tackling. Without that, you're screwed.
We have the raw talent. In my opinion, Rodriguez didn't stress the fundamentals enough. He seemed to concentrate too much on the schematic aspects, as they would in the NFL. These are not NFL players.
I think Hoke is a good hire, all things considered. He harkens back to the days (Bo, Moeller, early Carr) when these fundamentals were highly emphasized. Given time, they will lead to bigger things than conference championships. The offense they ran at SDSU is hardly "three yards and a cloud of dust then get out-coached in a bowl." Remember Weiss and his top 10 recruiting classes and "schematic advantage"? How far did that get him when his teams could not block and tackle?