coaching/QB discussion from Clayton thread

[MonroeJacket]

I can tell you my source came from someone who works with the team. I personally don’t know him, but my fraternity brother knows him. This fraternity brother also called the Collins hire and the starting QB for FSU

What’s his take on our QB situation?

 

[bikeseat]

What’s his take on our QB situation?

think young

 

[gville_jacket]

think young

In the college football landscape, starting a sophomore would still be considered young. Care to elaborate further?

 

[Recleb]

Y’all open your presents on the 23rd? I’m up for the Christmas morning thrill of the game time reveal.

In the college football landscape, starting a sophomore would still be considered young. Care to elaborate further?

 

[LibertyTurns]

Well we know CGC tends to make decisions considering the popularity more than solely on capabilities because his core philosophy is better recruiting and selling the program to generate interest will eventually lead to wins.

Based on that it makes sense it’s Sims.

 

[boger2337]

think young

They all young!

 

[Techster]

Well we know CGC tends to make decisions considering the popularity more than solely on capabilities because his core philosophy is better recruiting and selling the program to generate interest will eventually lead to wins.

Based on that it makes sense it’s Sims.

...or maybe Sims the best QB? Let's see how Sims plays before we make any judgements.

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

think young

Vince?

 

[SidewalkJacket]

Well we know CGC tends to make decisions considering the popularity more than solely on capabilities because his core philosophy is better recruiting and selling the program to generate interest will eventually lead to wins.

Based on that it makes sense it’s Sims.

Question his decisions all you want. Disagree. But don't think for one second that any HC in America makes a decision on who to play based on anything other than who he thinks gives the team the best chance to win. If a kid is passing his classes, isn't a behavioral problem, and is the best at his position, he plays. That's it and that's all.

 

[yeti92]

Question his decisions all you want. Disagree. But don't think for one second that any HC in America makes a decision on who to play based on anything other than who he thinks gives the team the best chance to win. If a kid is passing his classes, isn't a behavioral problem, and is the best at his position, he plays. That's it and that's all.

That's silly, our coaches obviously made decisions last season that were not based on who or what gave us the best chance to win at the time. They planned for future success (hopefully), not winning then and there.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

That's silly, our coaches obviously made decisions last season that were not based on who or what gave us the best chance to win at the time. They planned for future success (hopefully), not winning then and there.

Sorry, but this is a terrible take. Those of us who coach understand. No serious ball coach plays inferior players for the sake of the future. There's a difference in working in younger players along the way, and full-on playing guys you think won't help you win. This is one of those popular fan theories that gets laughed at by actual coaches.

Again, you may disagree with the decisions made, but be certain that coaches are trying to WIN. Every game. Every year.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Question his decisions all you want. Disagree. But don't think for one second that any HC in America makes a decision on who to play based on anything other than who he thinks gives the team the best chance to win. If a kid is passing his classes, isn't a behavioral problem, and is the best at his position, he plays. That's it and that's all.

Well there’s a ton of people on here that disagree. There’s wide consensus that last year and possible this year are “training wheel” years and we’re just going to have to suck up bad GT football to “get the kids and system in place”.

I’m in the camp that says “play to win now”. I would not have forced plays upon the offense in particular until they were ready to run them. I’d have opted for a smooth transition from 3O to whatever P’nut claims he’s running. We did what we did. I do not get to decide, but I can decide if I think it’s prudent or not. Just my opinion.

Not saying CGC’s approach is wrong, time will tell. maybe it’s just a 1 or 2 year disaster and much excitement is ahead. I sure as hell hope he’s right because it’s not good if he’s wrong, not at all. However, claiming he didn’t do what we all know he did is (pick the word) . He clearly embarked on his own course, that much is extremely clear. In so doing, some kids were left on the curb and others got their seat on the bus.

 

[bikeseat]

Vince?

thinner

 

[SidewalkJacket]

Well there’s a ton of people on here that disagree. There’s wide consensus that last year and possible this year are “training wheel” years and we’re just going to have to suck up bad GT football to “get the kids and system in place”.

I’m in the camp that says “play to win now”. I would not have forced plays upon the offense in particular until they were ready to run them. I’d have opted for a smooth transition from 3O to whatever P’nut claims he’s running. We did what we did. I do not get to decide, but I can decide if I think it’s prudent or not. Just my opinion.

Not saying CGC’s approach is wrong, time will tell. maybe it’s just a 1 or 2 year disaster and much excitement is ahead. I sure as hell hope he’s right because it’s not good if he’s wrong, not at all. However, claiming he didn’t do what we all know he did is (pick the word) . He clearly embarked on his own course, that much is extremely clear. In so doing, some kids were left on the curb and others got their seat on the bus.

I won't argue with you on playcalling. They may very well have decided to "play for the future" in terms of offense. I was disputing the notion that "inferior", younger players were played of older players for the sake of the future.

 

[mtodd30]

I think the “training wheel years” are just a product of turning around from a triple option system. The players we have now, especially O Linemen, were recruited and taught for years how to operate in a niche system. It not only takes time for the S&C program to help them get into better form for a more traditional scheme, but time to reteach football fundamentals.

We aren’t sacrificing wins by putting younger guys in, especially last year, because everyone was on a similar level mentally (and physically) in the new system. The problems in the W column are inevitable with this massive transition.

However, I’m optimistic this year for a pretty substantial increase in wins, hovering around the .500 range. That will help us continue to recruit well and demonstrate Collins’s developmental approach is working. The next year after this one I expect us to be in contention for the Coastal.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I won't argue with you on playcalling. They may very well have decided to "play for the future" in terms of offense. I was disputing the notion that "inferior", younger players were played of older players for the sake of the future.

I have no way of knowing obviously. If I was a betting man I’d say if there was a huge disparity in talent the most talented kid played. If it was somewhere close, CGC played for the future. 2 reasons- he clearly wanted a clean break from past to future, he wanted to hype opportunity and playing time for recruits.

That’s all I’m trying to say.

 

[lv20gt]

That's silly, our coaches obviously made decisions last season that were not based on who or what gave us the best chance to win at the time. They planned for future success (hopefully), not winning then and there.

Last year there were decisions made that were with the long term in mind, such as hiring a non TO coach and thus switching offenses. Last year we'd have been better off running the TO, but you don't hire a coach and have him run a system that he doesn't know and doesn't plan on using. That wasn't a coaching decision but an administrative one.

In terms of who played though, I don't think there is any real evidence to support the idea that they played players who they knew were worse for ulterior motives like was hinted at.

 

[ncjacket79]

Well we know CGC tends to make decisions considering the popularity more than solely on capabilities because his core philosophy is better recruiting and selling the program to generate interest will eventually lead to wins.

Based on that it makes sense it’s Sims.

No we don’t know that. Sims might well be the guy but the reason won’t be popularity or selling the program.

 

[Jacketman99]

No we don’t know that. Sims might well be the guy but the reason won’t be popularity or selling the program.

I agree with this. You cant preach competition is king and then start someone who has not earned the spot. That is a fast way to lose your team and credibility.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I agree with this. You cant preach competition is king and then start someone who has not earned the spot. That is a fast way to lose your team and credibility.

That’s the big danger.