Coach Z

#228
#228
thadolphinman said:
Sjt18, I don't have the time nor the breath to keep arguing with you. Believe what you want to believe, and continue to go after posters with your same, old, and tired argument. We obviously see two completely different things and nothing I say or that you say will get either of us to change our opinion.

It would be great to see some diversity out of your posts. I think you could bring a different side of the argument to this board, but all I see is your agenda getting in the way and I'm tired of hearing about how bad the coaches were this year. Have a good day, and on to ignore you go.
Click to expand...

Why do you think I have to go back to the same arguments so often? It is because others keep posting the same non-sense. I'm the unreasonable one according to you... but I am willing to accept that both talent AND coaching were factors. Those who I end up arguing with refuse to accept any criticism of the coaches... at all. Why aren't you lecturing THEM?

I want to believe but I'm not blind and the '13 Vol football team was not coached well. It was not developed particularly well by the previous staff... but it was not coached well by this one either. And worse, the development across the season was spotty at best.

Cowards put people on ignore.

The only other reason is if someone is vile or prone to namecalling and such.
 
#229
#229
LotteryPick said:
Which means they're a more talented roster.
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't. Words mean things. Talent is what a person has naturally. Intelligence, quickness, speed, strength, instinct, etc.

Development which Mizzou also does a good job of is taking that talent and improving it through training.

Skill is the net result and combined with coaching is what shows up on the field.

I completely agree that they're well coached and familiar with the system.
Click to expand...

UT had the disadvantage of being relatively new to their system. Development while not the disaster many seem to think since Dooley DID employ some pretty good assistants his first two years was behind. But UT had more raw talent.

The coaching of that situation was not good. That does not mean it will not improve. But to deny that UT should have and could have played Mizzou more competitively is to deny reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#230
#230
sjt18 said:
No. It doesn't. Words mean things. Talent is what a person has naturally. Intelligence, quickness, speed, strength, instinct, etc.

Development which Mizzou also does a good job of is taking that talent and improving it through training.

Skill is the net result and combined with coaching is what shows up on the field.



UT had the disadvantage of being relatively new to their system. Development while not the disaster many seem to think since Dooley DID employ some pretty good assistants his first two years was behind. But UT had more raw talent.

The coaching of that situation was not good. That does not mean it will not improve. But to deny that UT should have and could have played Mizzou more competitively is to deny reality.
Click to expand...

And Mizzou was faster, stronger, and just better than UT. Thus, more talented.

You don't make it to the SEC championship if THAT UT is more talented. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? I'm aware of the difference between talent and well coached.

If you want to try and make attempts to belittle me, I can easily turn around and do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#231
#231
LotteryPick said:
And Mizzou was faster, stronger, and just better than UT. Thus, more talented.
Click to expand...
Nope. Even with better development... they weren't. Why are you so determined to avoid any and all criticism of the coaches? Why can't you just acknowledge that better coaching would have made that a more competitive game?

You don't make it to the SEC championship if THAT UT is more talented. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? I'm aware of the difference between talent and well coached.
Click to expand...
But... you don't seem to understand the difference between talent and skill. Talent is what you are born with. Skill is what it looks like after you've developed that talent. UT's players had spotty development coming into the season but the development that occurred during the season was not very good eiether.

Mizzou proved to be a more skilled team and the ingame coaching was MUCH better than UT.

If you want to try and make attempts to belittle me, I can easily turn around and do the same.
Click to expand...
If I have belittled you or sounded that way then I sincerely apologize. I try to stick with what people say and avoid offending them very often... but I do fail at times and am sorry if I did with you.
 
#232
#232
sjt18 said:
Nope. Even with better development... they weren't. Why are you so determined to avoid any and all criticism of the coaches? Why can't you just acknowledge that better coaching would have made that a more competitive game?

But... you don't seem to understand the difference between talent and skill. Talent is what you are born with. Skill is what it looks like after you've developed that talent. UT's players had spotty development coming into the season but the development that occurred during the season was not very good eiether.

Mizzou proved to be a more skilled team and the ingame coaching was MUCH better than UT.

If I have belittled you or sounded that way then I sincerely apologize. I try to stick with what people say and avoid offending them very often... but I do fail at times and am sorry if I did with you.
Click to expand...

First off, I haven't said a thing about the coaching in game yet. Don't put words in my mouth.

So Mizzou's players were taught to be faster and stronger? After all, that is talent.

Mizzou did have a better game plan and executed it a helluva lot better. The problem is, they had a stout defense and an electric offense to do it. We had neither.
 
#233
#233
LotteryPick said:
First off, I haven't said a thing about the coaching in game yet. Don't put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
It is hard at times to distinguish who has said what when you are being attacked by ten or 12 different posters. Sometimes someone really trying to have a reasonable debate gets hit by stray rounds. Sorry about that.

So Mizzou's players were taught to be faster and stronger? After all, that is talent.
Click to expand...
They weren't faster. If they were stronger which I doubt then it was because they were better developed.

They had been taught to use the skill and talent they possess and then their coaches put them in a position to use it. That was not true of UT's players in that game.

Mizzou did have a better game plan and executed it a helluva lot better. The problem is, they had a stout defense and an electric offense to do it. We had neither.
Click to expand...

And that was not only a function of their talent and skill but also the development their coaching staff had done and then the coaching they did during the game. I readily acknowledge that UT's roster had deficiencies. What others seem to struggle with so badly is saying that the coaching was anything less than the best. It wasn't... and at times it wasn't even good.

UT's D was ill-prepared to stop Mizzou's base sweep. It wasn't that they were just getting physically beaten... they weren't in position. I was there. It was VERY frustrating to watch.
 
#234
#234
sjt18 said:
It is hard at times to distinguish who has said what when you are being attacked by ten or 12 different posters. Sometimes someone really trying to have a reasonable debate gets hit by stray rounds. Sorry about that.

They weren't faster. If they were stronger which I doubt then it was because they were better developed.

They had been taught to use the skill and talent they possess and then their coaches put them in a position to use it. That was not true of UT's players in that game.



And that was not only a function of their talent and skill but also the development their coaching staff had done and then the coaching they did during the game. I readily acknowledge that UT's roster had deficiencies. What others seem to struggle with so badly is saying that the coaching was anything less than the best. It wasn't... and at times it wasn't even good.

UT's D was ill-prepared to stop Mizzou's base sweep. It wasn't that they were just getting physically beaten... they weren't in position. I was there. It was VERY frustrating to watch.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that our defense had 2, maybe 3 guys who will play sundays and their offense had multiple players with NFL futures.

They were faster. Saying they weren't is ridiculous. I'm not saying we couldn't have been coached up better for the game (we could have), but there is no way we were going to shut down that offense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#236
#236
All I know is coach Z is already doing a great job with Malone because he has the best hands of any wr at his allstar game. Great job coach Z!
 
#237
#237
If anybody's got any information on how Coach Z's job interview went can you please start another thread. Cause this one just gone totally stupid and filled with a lot of BS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#238
#238
Darth_Shiveman said:
The fact of the matter is that our defense had 2, maybe 3 guys who will play sundays and their offense had multiple players with NFL futures.
Click to expand...
The NFL is for whatever reason fascinated with McCullers. AJ will go pro. Sutton likely will. Miller and Walls will be in someone's camp. If Saulsberry plays as well when he returns as he was prior to his injury he'll be drafted. JRM is likely to be drafted. There are others who played little who can go pro as well. And before you point out they didn't play... that's a part of my point. If you have guys with ability then you get them ready to play even if they're young.

Name the guys on Mizzou's O who will be drafted.

They were faster. Saying they weren't is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No it isn't because it is TRUE. They were put in position to make plays. They are skilled. But they did NOT physically overwhelm UT because of their speed. UT to the contrary was out of position almost the whole game. They busted coverages... THAT is a coaching responsibility and especially that late in the season. You need to educate yourself if you think that playing fast and being fast are exactly the same thing. UT played slow. Mizzou played fast. Part of that is on the players but much of it is on the coach.

I'm not saying we couldn't have been coached up better for the game (we could have), but there is no way we were going to shut down that offense.
Click to expand...

I don't know because they didn't adjust to stop the base sweep all day long.

UT's DE's CONSTANTLY gave up their outside arm. That is fundamental to keeping leverage on wide plays... and it is a coachable skill.
 
#239
#239
dovervolz said:
If anybody's got any information on how Coach Z's job interview went can you please start another thread. Cause this one just gone totally stupid and filled with a lot of BS
Click to expand...

I think someone earlier said that it either didn't occur or that for some other reason he was staying.
 
#240
#240
sjt18 said:
The NFL is for whatever reason fascinated with McCullers. AJ will go pro. Sutton likely will. Miller and Walls will be in someone's camp. If Saulsberry plays as well when he returns as he was prior to his injury he'll be drafted. JRM is likely to be drafted. There are others who played little who can go pro as well. And before you point out they didn't play... that's a part of my point. If you have guys with ability then you get them ready to play even if they're young.

Name the guys on Mizzou's O who will be drafted.

No it isn't because it is TRUE. They were put in position to make plays. They are skilled. But they did NOT physically overwhelm UT because of their speed. UT to the contrary was out of position almost the whole game. They busted coverages... THAT is a coaching responsibility and especially that late in the season. You need to educate yourself if you think that playing fast and being fast are exactly the same thing. UT played slow. Mizzou played fast. Part of that is on the players but much of it is on the coach.



I don't know because they didn't adjust to stop the base sweep all day long.

UT's DE's CONSTANTLY gave up their outside arm. That is fundamental to keeping leverage on wide plays... and it is a coachable skill.
Click to expand...

Justin Britt, OT, 2nd team all SEC for one, off the top of my head, will be an NFL draft pick. You asked.
 
#241
#241
KBVol said:
Justin Britt, OT, 2nd team all SEC for one, off the top of my head, will be an NFL draft pick. You asked.
Click to expand...

Interesting. You chose a former 2* player from a small school in MO. He is a GREAT illustration of what coaching and development can do. He was not a great athlete that drew the attention of a bunch of top schools or the recruiting svcs but went from a 6'5" 267 "project" to a possible NFL draftee.

Mizzou's coaches did "that".... but UT's coaches could not fully capitalize on an OL that will put 3 or 4 guys in the '14 draft.
 
#242
#242
sjt18 said:
Interesting. You chose a former 2* player from a small school in MO. He is a GREAT illustration of what coaching and development can do. He was not a great athlete that drew the attention of a bunch of top schools or the recruiting svcs but went from a 6'5" 267 "project" to a possible NFL draftee.

Mizzou's coaches did "that".... but UT's coaches could not fully capitalize on an OL that will put 3 or 4 guys in the '14 draft.
Click to expand...

I chose the one guy off the top of my head who I know will be drafted. Haven't looked to see who else. They were a very good, very OL this year, I'm sure there will be others drafted from that line
 
#243
#243
KBVol said:
I chose the one guy off the top of my head who I know will be drafted. Haven't looked to see who else. They were a very good, very OL this year, I'm sure there will be others drafted from that line
Click to expand...

He's probably the only OL. Washington and Franklin have a chance. DGB is the only other clear NFL caliber player on their O. Sam, Ealy, and maybe Gaines on D.
 
#244
#244
Bumpity bump bump...bump

Dang it took me 3 days to finally finished this thread. Good stuff guys. Keep it up. :)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#245
#245
sjt18 said:
UT's DE's CONSTANTLY gave up their outside arm. That is fundamental to keeping leverage on wide plays... and it is a coachable skill.
Click to expand...

Hallelujah someone else recognized this. It is a coachable skill, if the players are accepting of the coaching. So perhaps we should throw strip under the bus now too? I jest.... but seriously around end killed us last year. Hoping it was mainly personnel being played. The olb's didn't really help the matter either when teams got past our de's. They were slower and jumped angles hastily a fair amount of the time.
 
#246
#246
MSME Vol said:
Hallelujah someone else recognized this. It is a coachable skill, if the players are accepting of the coaching. So perhaps we should throw strip under the bus now too? I jest.... but seriously around end killed us last year. Hoping it was mainly personnel being played. The olb's didn't really help the matter either when teams got past our de's. They were slower and jumped angles hastily a fair amount of the time.
Click to expand...

Disagree. If you have guys constantly doing it then you try other guys. I know the options might be slim but for a whole lot of reasons you cannot allow the same guys to make the same mistakes over and over without paying the consequences. You can't have guys sitting behind guys who they know aren't getting the job done. Bad for discipline. Bad for morale.

And like the receiver issues, if it is one guy then blame the guy. If its the whole group then you have to consider the coaching.

BTW, why is it throwing a coach under the bus to question the job he did but not throwing a player under the bus to question how he played or took coaching?

PS- Either the guys were coachable or Jones lied. He said they had bought in faster than either of his first two teams.
 
#247
#247
sjt18 said:
Disagree. If you have guys constantly doing it then you try other guys. I know the options might be slim but for a whole lot of reasons you cannot allow the same guys to make the same mistakes over and over without paying the consequences. You can't have guys sitting behind guys who they know aren't getting the job done. Bad for discipline. Bad for morale.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with this. Guys who make the same mistakes over and over and play undisciplined should be sat down. BUT who could we have benched our DEs for? We didn't have the depth to sit guys who weren't cutting it unless we wanted to burn the redshirts of guys like Miller, Carr, Vickers, and Malik Brown who weren't physically ready to play yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#248
#248
Darth_Shiveman said:
I don't disagree with this. Guys who make the same mistakes over and over and play undisciplined should be sat down. BUT who could we have benched our DEs for? We didn't have the depth to sit guys who weren't cutting it unless we wanted to burn the redshirts of guys like Miller, Carr, Vickers, and Malik Brown who weren't physically ready to play yet.
Click to expand...

Vereen's had already been burned and the main culprit was J Smith IMO. He and McCullers should have been benched and stayed there regardless of what they had to do.
 
#249
#249
BTW, I still believe better coaching gets better results from the guys who did play. Lesser athletes like those playing for Duke execute that.... among others.
 
#250
#250
sjt18 said:
Vereen's had already been burned and the main culprit was J Smith IMO. He and McCullers should have been benched and stayed there regardless of what they had to do.
Click to expand...

I was exempting Vereen because he played quite a bit once he got healthy. But we didn't really have an alternate at SDE. I was never impressed by smith or McCullers either. I wish Saulsberry had stayed healthier. He was pretty solid and more explosive.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top