I see a problem-- a big one

iluvfootball · Post by **iluvfootball** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:00 pm

It is now Monday and I am still upset by the win(?) our team squeaked out Saturday evening. I was there. I moved for lightening both times, and came back to watch, in horror, what I am calling one of the worst football games I have ever seen in my life. For now, I'm going to skip the special teams, they are "special" alright... short bus and everything, and no I'm not talking about the players. I'm not an armchair quarterback. Years ago I played QB in high school and I always hated hearing "What I would have done" stories from people that, obviously, would have sat on their @sses while you did something. That is not what I am doing here with this post, but I need help with what I have seen the past two weeks.

I've read just about every post on here pertaining to Saturday's game. My problem is this: It's called a "system"! You hear it all the time, "an offensive system", or "our new defensive system". The most appropriate definition of a system is as follows: “A coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme”. Notice the word “plan”? The truth is BG doesn’t have a system at all-- It’s obvious. This year’s offense is identical to last year’s when Turner replaced Jacobs due to injury. It is obvious that they are different plays than what was called with Jacobs. What kind of system is that? Do you mean to tell me that if Jacobs was still playing, we’d be doing this? That brings us to another problem-- if you run the spread offense, what the hell are you doing recruiting QBs that can’t play in it? I find it ridiculous to even think that Turner was recruited as a QB and can’t throw a football. I read a post that touched on this, where it was mentioned that the BG offense has been tailored to the talents of the QBs over the past several seasons. My question is why? I’m all for “tweaking”, but a complete revitalization?

I've read post after post about young players this and young players that... I call BS on that whole excuse! If you are at a job and you tell your boss, “Sorry I didn’t get that report turned in on time, but look at this webpage I did instead.”, you don’t get a pat on the back and moved to the web development team. You will probably be fired. Jobs in football are the same. If Turner can’t throw then replace him and let the system continue. Well, if neither Turner nor Barnes can throw, than we might as well kiss the season goodbye because I don’t think OSU, amongst others, will find BGs “sneak offense” difficult to embarrass. There are different ways of doing the same job and this is where the “tweaking” becomes a factor, but changing from the spread, to the “sneak” offense, I think constitutes a problem—a major one.

One last question to my rant-- How in the hell are these “young” players EVER going to get any better at throwing and catching by doing ANYTHING other than throwing and catching? Does knitting help you lift weights? It’s insane to think that these players are just going to develop without being trained. These are college athletes here on full scholarship to do just those functions—let them do it. Also, what kind of message are they sending to Dan Macon and Pete Winovich by not letting them do their jobs? Hell if the QBs and WRs are too young/inexperienced/stupid to get the job done, than line up in the “I” and run the ball. Knock it off with the rushing QB tandem, its just stupid.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:20 pm

IMO, you are way off base, and I'm the local pessimist.

In college football (ESPECIALLY at the MAC level) a coach must be willing and capable of adapting his system to fit the players that are on the roster. All good college coaches go out and grab the best talent that they can, and let the system adapt to fit the best players on the team. In our case, especially, we cannot go out and get the best players in the country we oftentimes must settle for players that fall through the cracks. We are in no position to turn down talent.

If you start turning away superior talent just because they are not the prototype for your system then you are going to fall behind your competitors in talent level. In fact, if you look back Omar Jacbos would NOT have been the ideal fit into the system that we ran from '01-'03, those offenses relied quite heavily on the QB to rush the ball. Once Omar was the QB we went to a more pass happy attack and relied less on rnning the ball, especially from the QB spot. Now we are back to having more rush oriented QBs, so we must return to the style we used during Harris' years. In fact, physically, I don't think Turner is much behind what Harris brought to the table. The biggest problem, still, IMO is mental. Either the coaching staff not having the confidence in the QBs to make those plays or the QBs not having the confidence in themselves to make the read and deliver the ball. Turner made some very good throws Saturday, so I don't believe for a secod that he cannot throw the ball. I do think he's struggling mentally to get everything down pat, and the coaching staff is limiting the play calling accordingly. That is not a good sign, but still Turner is physically capable of running our offense.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:14 pm

I stopped reading when I got to the word "win(?)". A win is a win no matter how ugly or displeasing it is to your sensibilities.

iluvfootball · Post by **iluvfootball** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:18 pm

No where in my post did I say that there was any lack of talent on the roster. I don't feel that is the case at all. I think that BG has one of the more talent stacked rosters in the MAC. This is my point. Let them play their positions. It's F'd up when you are running QB draws and sweeps when you NEED to get 1st downs. Use the HBs for running, and the QBs to pass, and then mix it up a little to keep the defense honest. If you pass more it will open up the run and vise versa. Look how well the pass worked late in the 4th and in OT.

You need to open them up and let them play the positions that they were brought here to do. I don't believe the WRs can't catch, and that the QBs can't throw. QBs should be QBs and HBs should be HBs and WRs should not block as much as linemen. Even in the days of Harris, yes he did do a lot of running, but not as many of his plays were planned draws. He liked to run with it, and typically did so even on called pass plays. I don't blame him, as the line had some trouble back then.

Harris was a scrambing QB. I feel Turner and Barnes are as well. There is a point when a line is crossed and you are using QBs as tailbacks. When you are swapping 2 QBs so they can catch their breath, there's a problem with the play calls. There is no reason to not run the option if you can do it. There is also no reason not to pass, in passing situations, when you need to do it. being at that game made me ill.

We are a division 1 program. Yes, we might not get first pick on the elite players, but we have plenty of talent. We did get the #1 punter in the nation, so the MAC doesn't suck THAT much in recruiting ability. Let the guys play the positions they were brought in to do. Having the QB rush for over half of the plays on offense is stupid. We don't need 4 starting RBs.

FliccGirl · Post by **FliccGirl** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:19 pm

Flipper wrote:I stopped reading when I got to the word "win(?)". A win is a win no matter how ugly or displeasing it is to your sensibilities.

True. Does anyone but me find it ironic that after this game, the fans of the losing team are ecstatic, and the fans of the winning team are morose? I know, I know: "They're Buffalo! We're BG!" Yes, it was ugly. Still. Flipper's point remains true.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:24 pm

Althought I disagree for the most part with what he says, it is good to hear from someone new on this board. I also agree that the offense would be more proflic if we could have recruited another pocket type QB like Omar, but as hammb pointed out we are in no position to turn down talent and IMO we have to take the best available players and then build a system around them no matter what it is.

One factor I that think people are overlooking is that the "pistol" offense was created last year at Nevada. GB spent some time this offseason contacting them and studying that and now we are trying to run a variation of it. Not only are our players new and young, but so is our system, and I can only hope that after an unecessary scare against UB, the coaches will start to open up the playbook more to Turner as a thrower.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:30 pm

I think Turner can be a fine passing QB if we gave him a chance to get comfortable back there. Obviously the coaching staff has a much clearer picture of his abilities (I'm not being sarcastic here), and they seem hesitant. I think we should give him a shot to air it out a little bit to Partridge and Ruiz on the outside, and especially Drob down the middle. If he's not the answer, rip the redshirt off the QB who's the most capable. If we don't have a QB that can pass the ball, go to the triple option or Wing T. Well, fire the staff first for not recruiting a QB that can pass, and then go to the option

I really don't care to see Barnes at QB ever again. Turner gives us the same rushing ability back there, and he's more polished as a passer. He's not quite as explosive running the ball, but he was getting some extra YAC that Freddie wasn't. Freddie, Macon, and Winovich can split the HB carries, with Macon getting the bulk, and Turner can run 8-10 times a game on QB draws up the middle and when he chooses to keep it on an option or QB read run. I don't care for the QB sweep from an empty backfield with Winovich in motion. Once or twice a game is fine, but we need to pass out of the set a few times to keep the D honest. I have no problem with running the ball 60-70% of the time, especially if it continues to work, but the play-calling we've been using will not work against a defense with any kind of ability or coaching. When 90% of the fans in the stadium know exactly what's coming, you can bet a good D coordinator and linebacking crew will as well.

As far the merits of a running QB? If that guy can pass the ball too, it's invaluable in college football. A scrambling QB is the hardest thing to account for on defense. It slows down the pass rush considerably, and causes positive yardage on broken plays, which can break the spirit of a defense (and it's fans. I'm a Michy fan -- trust me).

UK Peregrine · Post by **UK Peregrine** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:54 pm

Where does your glass fill up?

Falconfliccbone · Post by **Falconfliccbone** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 4:59 pm

iluvfootball wrote:I moved for lightening both times, and came back to watch, in horror, what I am calling one of the worst football games I have ever seen in my life.

How can you call that one of the worst football games? Sure it was ugly for us, but you can not deny that it was exciting. Triple overtime! Everyone was on the edge of their seats. I know I would rather watch a close game where the winner is decided in overtime than watch us stomp a team into the ground. The suspense and anticipation is great. And the crowd support was amazing! This is definitely the kind of game that I would want to watch on TV.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:47 pm

Falconfliccbone wrote:
iluvfootball wrote:I moved for lightening both times, and came back to watch, in horror, what I am calling one of the worst football games I have ever seen in my life.
How can you call that one of the worst football games? Sure it was ugly for us, but you can not deny that it was exciting. Triple overtime! Everyone was on the edge of their seats. I know I would rather watch a close game where the winner is decided in overtime than watch us stomp a team into the ground. The suspense and anticipation is great. And the crowd support was amazing! This is definitely the kind of game that I would want to watch on TV.

If I have no emotional attachment to either team I would like to watch a game like Saturday's. It would've been exciting. As a fan of a college football team that wants his team to be undefeated every year? I'd much rather we just beat every team on our schedule by 50.

bgsufalcon24 · Post by **bgsufalcon24** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:59 am

FliccGirl wrote:
Flipper wrote:I stopped reading when I got to the word "win(?)". A win is a win no matter how ugly or displeasing it is to your sensibilities.
True. Does anyone but me find it ironic that after this game, the fans of the losing team are ecstatic, and the fans of the winning team are morose? I know, I know: "They're Buffalo! We're BG!" Yes, it was ugly. Still. Flipper's point remains true.

For some reason most everybody on this board has decided that they have had it for Gregg Brandon. Seeing his track record here at BG, I couldn't disagree with them more. I find it hilarious when you compare Brandon's record to that of Dan Dakich, who seems to be more highly regarded on AZZ despite the recent plummeting of the basketball program.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:08 am

bgsufalcon24 wrote:
FliccGirl wrote:
Flipper wrote:I stopped reading when I got to the word "win(?)". A win is a win no matter how ugly or displeasing it is to your sensibilities.
True. Does anyone but me find it ironic that after this game, the fans of the losing team are ecstatic, and the fans of the winning team are morose? I know, I know: "They're Buffalo! We're BG!" Yes, it was ugly. Still. Flipper's point remains true.
For some reason most everybody on this board has decided that they have had it for Gregg Brandon. Seeing his track record here at BG, I couldn't disagree with them more. I find it hilarious when you compare Brandon's record to that of Dan Dakich, who seems to be more highly regarded on AZZ despite the recent plummeting of the basketball program.

I think there's more of a "Fix it before it's broke" type of attitude. I think that we need to remember that Brandon is still maturing and learning as a coach. Last Saturday was a big reminder of that and I think Brandon has realized this as well.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:01 pm

The big issue with Brandon is that he never seems to make half time or in game adjustments. the Talent is here to be very good, but we are too predictable. i think Strudwara got moved up to fast IMO.

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:18 pm

iluvfootball wrote:It is now Monday and I am still upset by the win(?) our team squeaked out Saturday evening. I was there. I moved for lightening both times, and came back to watch, in horror, what I am calling one of the worst football games I have ever seen in my life. For now, I'm going to skip the special teams, they are "special" alright... short bus and everything, and no I'm not talking about the players. I'm not an armchair quarterback. Years ago I played QB in high school and I always hated hearing "What I would have done" stories from people that, obviously, would have sat on their @sses while you did something. That is not what I am doing here with this post, but I need help with what I have seen the past two weeks.

I've read just about every post on here pertaining to Saturday's game. My problem is this: It's called a "system"! You hear it all the time, "an offensive system", or "our new defensive system". The most appropriate definition of a system is as follows: “A coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme”. Notice the word “plan”? The truth is BG doesn’t have a system at all-- It’s obvious. This year’s offense is identical to last year’s when Turner replaced Jacobs due to injury. It is obvious that they are different plays than what was called with Jacobs. What kind of system is that? Do you mean to tell me that if Jacobs was still playing, we’d be doing this? That brings us to another problem-- if you run the spread offense, what the hell are you doing recruiting QBs that can’t play in it? I find it ridiculous to even think that Turner was recruited as a QB and can’t throw a football. I read a post that touched on this, where it was mentioned that the BG offense has been tailored to the talents of the QBs over the past several seasons. My question is why? I’m all for “tweaking”, but a complete revitalization?

I've read post after post about young players this and young players that... I call BS on that whole excuse! If you are at a job and you tell your boss, “Sorry I didn’t get that report turned in on time, but look at this webpage I did instead.”, you don’t get a pat on the back and moved to the web development team. You will probably be fired. Jobs in football are the same. If Turner can’t throw then replace him and let the system continue. Well, if neither Turner nor Barnes can throw, than we might as well kiss the season goodbye because I don’t think OSU, amongst others, will find BGs “sneak offense” difficult to embarrass. There are different ways of doing the same job and this is where the “tweaking” becomes a factor, but changing from the spread, to the “sneak” offense, I think constitutes a problem—a major one.

One last question to my rant-- How in the hell are these “young” players EVER going to get any better at throwing and catching by doing ANYTHING other than throwing and catching? Does knitting help you lift weights? It’s insane to think that these players are just going to develop without being trained. These are college athletes here on full scholarship to do just those functions—let them do it. Also, what kind of message are they sending to Dan Macon and Pete Winovich by not letting them do their jobs? Hell if the QBs and WRs are too young/inexperienced/stupid to get the job done, than line up in the “I” and run the ball. Knock it off with the rushing QB tandem, its just stupid.

I lke what you have written here and feel your pain.
I can tell you that the BGSU Offensive system as named. Is not linial. We do not have a playbook and then fit and force the players to run say the I and or basic wing all day into the ground. we are different in that, and this is as I see it, working in a system of (as any team does when players are viewed) variables. we differ in that the end result is our offensive system is derived out of potential best uses of strengths. Turner is not a natural passer, he has shown that, the best Natural passer I have seen on BGSU right now is Gauld but we are not operating with him yet. We have built a strong running O our of the spread, that opens up some nice passes that AT can capitailze on to keep a D honest in their coverage.
So we could say we two systems with in the spread, a run and pass. under the superior passing of an Omar Jacobs that o capitializes upon that ability. And when we have whiley old rabbit QB we capitalize upon the ability to run.
SO for now you will see a more Josh harris like Offense, and Ill bet At will grow to pass a little more but you wont see a ton. In this variation of our O

I see a problem-- a big one

I see a problem-- a big one

Re: I see a problem-- a big one

Re: I see a problem-- a big one

Re: I see a problem-- a big one