Oh you mean like they did with the competition between hooker and Milton? That practice right? Or a different practice? You can say fans are total idiots and have no insight if you want to but all that matters is what happens out on the field. And our defensive coordinator should’ve looked at how poor our play at middle linebacker was and made a change. The obvious change would’ve been a given Willis some actual playing time to assess the difference between the two. But because of seniority, understanding terminologies, and who knows what else… The job was given to Aaron Beasley and no matter how incompetent he was on Saturday it remained his job. It is a flawed by the staff.
Yeah. Exactly like the Hooker Milton battle except that we KNOW that Milton didn't play in games like he did in practice. Every observer was impressed with his arm and downfield accuracy... then he couldn't hit those throws in games. He didn't fail because he didn't know how to run the offense or any of that.
Willis was given opportunities. There is no other position like QB. No one has found a way to truly make a 2 player rotation work much less more. LB isn't like that at all. If you demonstrate in practice that you can line up and make plays then you will get playing time even if you aren't quite as good as the starter. UT DESPERATELY needed warm bodies at LB last year and Willis couldn't earn his way to even get the chance you think he was cheated out of. If he could not handle the mental part then he COULD NOT be put in a game.
And the comparison between Milton and Hooker is incredibly relevant here because that is very much the same. Milton won the job based on what happened in closed limited contact practices and no matter how incompetent he was they didn’t give anyone else game reps.
Well, no. You are 100% wrong. They are not at all the same. As mentioned above, you have one QB. Ideally you play 3 deep at LB if you have the guys who can handle it. Your best QB plays every snap. Your best 3 LB's share snaps if they're all capable.
Milton did win the job in practice. He had command of the offense. He made the throws. It wasn't even pressure that caused him to play poorly... he just seemed to lose his poise a lot like JG when the lights came on.
Hooker played against BGSU and then took over in the 2nd half of the 2nd game in spite of the fact that Milton was healthy enough to reenter. He started the third game. How exactly did he not give anyone else game reps?
That was bizarre. Because Milton had proven nothing in game action. The only reason hooker ultimately got on the field is because Milton was injured. The staff hast to do a better job of identifying players that are not competing well in game action and giving others an opportunity… Regardless of what their first impressions and practice were of a player
I don't usually use this tactic because it usually isn't fair... but it is with the nature of your criticism. If you think you can see which players perform worse in practice but will be better in games than those who outperform them in practice... then you should get a SEC coaching job and win championships. Heupel and crew are doing it the same way Smart, Saban, Fisher, and every other quality coach in football does it. If a "gamer" is EVER discovered... it is universally because he got a chance to play and showed out. It is NOT because some coach ignored who performed better in practice.