Very curious Mike Sewak

[bke1984]

I hope it's a personality thing and not incompetence.


only one person on this thread said anything that could be construed as hateful.

People have been pretty hateful about this guy for several years now, not just on this post.

 

[Longestday]

I think the issue is more assignment than ability to execute. Yes there were some plays we could not execute because the defender was better. But, there were many we just did not block the right person. When we did block the right person, we did enough to move the ball a majority of the time. We showed we could dive over and over, and I think that shows we have the ability.

 

[Ash]

But, there were many we just did not block the right person.

Of course, that is the most frighting prospect. If that continues, even mediocre defenses are going to eat us up. Clem and VT are going to be tough even if we execute well.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I should probably read ahead before posting this but I can't constrain myself. I read a few comments before watching the tape and I am dumb struck by how we each hear different things in the same conference. I did not hear him praising the line that much nor did I hear him making excuses. He has an easy going manner and seems to like to accentuate the positive. Having said that, here are some of the comments that stood out for me...

We didn't execute.
We did not have enough plays in the game to be able to change things up much.
Would have liked to have seen more of what we saw in practice happening in the game.
Certain positions on the line are going to be competitive all year.
BC defense has been good for two years. They are really long. Their linebackers were especially good. We did not finish the play against them.
Wasn't pleased with our footwork.
They were good.
Acknowledged that line looked rusty. Did not account for this and acknowledged that other positions did not look rusty.
This was a hard game.
This was hard.
This was an ACC win. They don't just hand those out. Ask BC if they would rather have had a win than a loss (given how they played).

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I know that was a lot of coach speak...but the question about BC using their middle linebacker lined up the way they did bothers me. ND played us that way and blew us up too. For something that we have seen work well against us before he did not seem to concerned. Maybe we really don't have an adjustment and that's why we have not made one.

He said what BC did on defense was not that exotic, not like what Virginia Tech does. He seemed not too impressed with it but acknowledged we would see it again (if we don't get better against it).

 

[AE 87]

I should probably read ahead before posting this but I can't constrain myself. I read a few comments before watching the tape and I am dumb struck by how we each hear different things in the same conference. I did not hear him praising the line that much nor did I hear him making excuses. He has an easy going manner and seems to like to accentuate the positive. Having said that, here are some of the comments that stood out for me...

We didn't execute.
We did not have enough plays in the game to be able to change things up much.
Would have liked to have seen more of what we saw in practice happening in the game.
Certain positions on the line are going to be competitive all year.
BC defense has been good for two years. They are really long. Their linebackers were especially good. We did not finish the play against them.
Wasn't pleased with our footwork.
They were good.
Acknowledged that line looked rusty. Did not account for this and acknowledged that other positions did not look rusty.
This was a hard game.
This was hard.
This was an ACC win. They don't just hand those out. Ask BC if they would rather have had a win than a loss (given how they played).

Thanks. Nice Summary. One small thing, the reference to rusty (IIUC) was that they didn't look rusty in pass pro.

 

[lastoption]

The one glaring ability question I have had the past two years is whether we have the athletic ability to get to the second level or whether it is technique/assignment uncertainty that is causing the problem. I honestly don't know. as someone noted on another thread it looks like we are often releasing toward where the LB is lined up as opposed to where he is going to be. If that is true and is not the right release angle, that makes me feel better because that should be correctable. If we just aren't fast enough to get there consistently then that is a huge problem because we won't be able to run TO if we can't get that second level block consistently. I am a big Shamire fan, so I am probably biased, but he looked consistently good to me.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Good question. If just analyzing our OL vs BC DL or D. I think BC won the overall battle for sure. If a D only gives up the rushing yards they did vs us then imo for sure they won....

Ok so your analysis is based purely off our rushing total alone?Interesting....do you factor in yards lost on sacks in this? What yardage rushing would equal Oline success in your book?

Now. The question is why did they win? Were they just man to man physically better? Or was it our unit didnt perform (assignments, physicality, whatever else) but man to man we were fine and could have been way better.

So for me. Its the latter. Sure bc is good. But we also could have been way better

I must admit I'm not clear on exactly what "the latter" is that you are trying to explain here. I think you may be saying man to man we were just as talented as the BC Dline but failed to perform assignments / being physical, and whatever else.....(what is whatever else???

Now is the next question. Could we have been way better because mostly the players werent playing well, concentrating and at fault? Or is it because a certain OL Coach has fostered a environment that has not demanded and dictated the level of performance needed, an environment of teaching techniques, but loose with repercussions, and environment of good enough? A systemic environment that has led to many years of subpar performances. That you wonder why navy doesnt have the same eye test problems and they are under talent???

Other than personal uninformed speculation....what information do you have about this environment you are alluding to?

Or is it 50/50?

For me its 30/70. I think the players have to be better, but sewak has a loose, good enough threshold that many coaches are far more demanding (like paul is)....and I think paul has to fix this.

 

[Boomergump]

I am glad I finally gave a gander to this thread. Personally, I have no concerns about Sewak's interview. None. I thought it was pretty good and reflective of what happened.

I will never express my opinions as fact. With that said, as someone who watches these replays with great interest and repetition, every single week for years running now, I have the strongly held opinion that this defense gave us the stiffest test of ANY since I have been doing so. I believe that fully, without reservation. So for me, that is the starting point of this discussion. What is expected of our kids in the face of the greatest test they have faced yet? I base this on talent, experience AND preparation of BC's defense.

To characterize this as our guys getting whipped, I disagree with strongly. We won some and lost some on the interior, in terms of "mano a mano" (don't know how to spell it). Against BC, 4 of 5 can win their own battle and it won't be enough.

When a defense shifts, I simply don't know what all the "rules" are, in terms of OL checks and communication, therefore I am not going to judge, but rather, trust Sewak and all of our other coaches with this eval. I WILL say this though, the formations and the shifts APPEARED to my eye to cause some confusion relative to what I am used to seeing. Coach Sewak may question the value of all the formations, but to my eye, it had its intended effect, if you were a BC coach. Maybe it shouldn't have, and the GT coaches are rightfully angry, but I would say it did, none-the-less.

This is the first game. We checked at the line, away from original plays on occasion. It sure looked like not everybody got the message, or the same message, all of the time. This is correctable and predictable for a first game. We have to remember, it is the kids who are playing, not the coaches, who have seen it all. For the kids, some of this was new.

Probably the worst thing we can to is catasrophize (probably not a word, but I am inventing it for this sentence) the results of this contest. We won. We did just enough. We faced a huge challenge. That huge challenge revealed areas of needed growth for our kids that playing Tulane never would. We survived. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. That I believe. It nearly killed us, but it didn't. We won't face a bigger challenge from a defense (alone) all year, most likely. I see this as a win win. Quite frankly, if Climpsum's defense is close to BC's, we would have lost this game handily if it were against them, because their offense is probably a lot better in comparison. It wasn't Climpsum, but BC. Maybe it will help get us ready.

Take a deep breath and resist the temptation to extrapolate wildly. We got this.

 

[alagold]

BC # 13,28 and particularly 97 blew us up...97 dominated Freddie Burden

absolutely true, and most others he faced

 

[Boomergump]

BC # 13,28 and particularly 97 blew us up...97 dominated Freddie Burden

You could throw about 9 jersey numbers out there and not be wrong.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I am glad I finally gave a gander to this thread. Personally, I have no concerns about Sewak's interview. None. I thought it was pretty good and reflective of what happened.

I will never express my opinions as fact. With that said, as someone who watches these replays with great interest and repetition, every single week for years running now, I have the strongly held opinion that this defense gave us the stiffest test of ANY since I have been doing so. I believe that fully, without reservation. So for me, that is the starting point of this discussion. What is expected of our kids in the face of the greatest test they have faced yet? I base this on talent, experience AND preparation of BC's defense.

To characterize this as our guys getting whipped, I disagree with strongly. We won some and lost some on the interior, in terms of "mano a mano" (don't know how to spell it). Against BC, 4 of 5 can win their own battle and it won't be enough.

When a defense shifts, I simply don't know what all the "rules" are, in terms of OL checks and communication, therefore I am not going to judge, but rather, trust Sewak and all of our other coaches with this eval. I WILL say this though, the formations and the shifts APPEARED to my eye to cause some confusion relative to what I am used to seeing. Coach Sewak may question the value of all the formations, but to my eye, it had its intended effect, if you were a BC coach. Maybe it shouldn't have, and the GT coaches are rightfully angry, but I would say it did, none-the-less.

This is the first game. We checked at the line, away from original plays on occasion. It sure looked like not everybody got the message, or the same message, all of the time. This is correctable and predictable for a first game. We have to remember, it is the kids who are playing, not the coaches, who have seen it all. For the kids, some of this was new.

Probably the worst thing we can to is catasrophize (probably not a word, but I am inventing it for this sentence) the results of this contest. We won. We did just enough. We faced a huge challenge. That huge challenge revealed areas of needed growth for our kids that playing Tulane never would. We survived. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. That I believe. It nearly killed us, but it didn't. We won't face a bigger challenge from a defense (alone) all year, most likely. I see this as a win win. Quite frankly, if Climpsum's defense is close to BC's, we would have lost this game handily if it were against them, because their offense is probably a lot better in comparison. It wasn't Climpsum, but BC. Maybe it will help get us ready.

Take a deep breath and resist the temptation to extrapolate wildly. We got this.

Personally, I think that the Iowa defense was the stiffest a Johnson-coached team has faced, but otherwise, I definitely appreciate your thoughts.

 

[GTpdm]

Personally, I think that the Iowa defense was the stiffest a Johnson-coached team has faced, but otherwise, I definitely appreciate your thoughts.

True, but that's not a memory that I really want to have unearthed from the hole I buried it in.

 

[Boomergump]

Personally, I think that the Iowa defense was the stiffest a Johnson-coached team has faced, but otherwise, I definitely appreciate your thoughts.

Although I disagree, it is not by a wide margin.

 

[33jacket]

Rushing yards just one example of proof our ol was beaten by bc for the most part. The other is the tape. Bc won the los battle

The latter is the latter of the two sentences. In other words imo we had a ol talented enough to be much better than we were vs bc. But missed assignments or whatever reason let bc beat us pretty good for the most part that game.

Not uniformed speculation. Opinions from ex staff and people within the program on sewaks unit's environment. Opinion he gets too loose at times allowing more room for error repetitively. He is not full of youthful piss and vinegar and drive like Paul still is. And clearly its a constant resultant on the field. Actually...skating through meetings was the words used to describe him.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

@33jacket
. Now that would be insightful commentary coming from a staff member. Who said such and when?

 

[jacketup]

“It’s about who you want to be and what you want to be. Do you want to be dead average, because the way you played on Saturday is, at best, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and call you average. Or do you want to be good, and if you want to be good, you’d better work and come out and play better and play harder. More physical. More accountability. I mean, it doesn’t take ability to look at who you’re supposed to look at. That’s not hard. Everybody should be able to do that, as opposed to stand and try to guess what play’s coming. Just do your job and do it to the best of your ability as hard as you can do it.”

From Paul Johnson, who is one game under .500 for the last 6 plus seasons vs FBS teams.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and call him average. I wonder what he wants to be.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Lmao....average doesn't get a school like Tech to the ACC championship game....average doesn't get Tech to Orange Bowls.

 

[Jerry the Jacket]

I have heard Sewak tear his troops a new one several times when we were allowed to attend scrimmages and some practices. I was concerned he might alienate some of his guys by dressing them down so forcefully in front of their peers. He will let you know what he thinks. So that is not a problem.

Go Jackets!

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

First hand knowledge....that I can value. Doesn't mean Sewak is or isn't a good coach but I hate false narratives to prove certain opinions. Thanx for sharing.