Should Kansas Go Young(Revisited)?
by Owen on Oct 19, 2010 11:15 AM CDT
in Kansas Jayhawk Football 2010
Email
PrintThree weeks ago we had a fanpost go up. "Should KU Go Young?". The question was:
Our team has no choice but to be young in some areas (QB and WR for example) but what about the rest of the team? It seems like we have a mix of veteran guys and then really really young guys, and then really really really young guys.
There is no substitute for in-game experience, and we aren’t going to be good anyways. Put in the young guns?
-KUGrad
At the time most of us were on the play to win bandwagon thinking we still had an outside shot at a 5 maybe 6 win season and of course the opinion that the older guys had earned an opportunity. What about today? Still thinking in that way?
Personally I'm of the opinion that the coach might just want to step in and make the statement that this team belongs to the youth.
If Brad Thorson isn't getting it done...Riley Spencer it's time for some on the job training, buckle up your chin strap. Toben Opurum figures to be a guy we'll rely on at linebacker next year...sorry Drew Dudley it just isn't working out right now. Moving on down the line, Erick McGriff looked decent in limited action last night, maybe it shouldn't be limited?
Now I'm still all for upperclassman that are showing up and competing every week. Justin Springer, Daymond Patterson, Olaitan Oguntodu, play them. But this is showing to be a team devoid of leadership. Plenty of that rests on the shoulders of the coaches, but there also HAS to be leadership among those on the field. Where's the accountability in the program right now?
Last year Kansas had four upperclassman who were excellent leaders. Perhaps what we have is a group of role players that have been with the program through four years where leadership was a given and they just haven't stepped into that role the way the team needed them to.
Is it a bad idea? At the time of Grad's fanpost a month ago we had 75% saying to play the best and just 25% saying play young. What are we thinking today?
84 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So you want to penalize a senior
and take away his last season of football just because his teammates are performing poorly?
Now I’m still all for upperclassman that are showing up and competing every week. Justin Springer, Daymond Patterson, Olaitan Oguntodu, play them.
nope, I’m not saying that at all.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
Sorry, should have specified. You seem to be in the "Play the best, forget the rest." camp.
Someone who votes for the “Things have changed, it’s time to look ahead with some on the job training.” is saying that.
Change for the sake of change rarely pans out.
I'm in that camp for the most part...
I guess where I’d struggle would be with a guy like Thorson. He’s clearly playing hurt, he’s clearly playing out of position and he’s not effective. I’d have to believe that Riley Spencer can be at least as effective and help us going forward.
I hate to run through and single out individuals but there are other places on the field where guys seem to be going through the motions and not doing their jobs in my opinion and if that’s the case move on.
I’m still in the “play the best” camp…but I guess at this point my expectations for those in an upperclassman role would be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than they were before. You better be giving it EVERY thing you’ve got and there better not be a question. If there is question among your teammates or the coaches, I’d turn the page to the next guy in line and build toward the future.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
If a guy is struggling
then he’s probably not the best at the position. If he is, then we’re in worse shape than I thought.
I don’t think an upper classmen should automatically start, but I also don’t think they should automatically be benched just to give someone else some experience.
Whomever is working the hardest should get the nod.
I'd "penalize" our seniors
No one is showing leadership, very few if any of them are playing well, and the team as a whole sucks.
When you are losing by 50 every week, your players aren’t cutting it. What have these seniors done to keep their spot? All I’ve seen are guys loafing, not caring, not executing and above all else, not cutting it
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'd say Gill was trying to do the exact opposite...
How else to explain why Quigley was the starter at RB…and why Thorson continues to start on the OL.
I don’t think it makes any sense at all to just go young…but it makes just as little sense to continue trotting out someone that isn’t getting the job done, particularly if his development as a player will do absolutely nothing for you in the future.
Like we saw last week, these guys will get plenty of time anyway, because we’re unlikely to compete the rest of the season. I just hope they aren’t as tuned out as I am.
by hiphopopotamus on Oct 19, 2010 11:43 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Gill did do the opposite, and it hurt us
Game one, we start Quigs and run him up the gut over and over. Run game is terrible, we lose. Using our senior. The NEXT WEEK, we put in a friggin true freshman who looks ten times better, our run game is better, and we get what will be our best (and likely half of the final total) win all year….
Thats my point. We pull a redshirt off a true frosh and boom he looks great, and earns a spot over a senior. Makes me wonder what the other guys can do. Will they all be a Sims? No. But there could be a few other guys who just need an opportunity to show what they can do. We know what these seniors are going to do, lets see what we got with the young guys
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions
just as an FYI...
Quigley got moved back to #1 on the depth chart over Sims this week.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
lol
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh no!
there goes our offense
by PenguinHawk on Oct 19, 2010 4:29 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Quigley's ypc = Sims' ypc @ GT
Sims got more carries and therefore had the better total, otherwise they were equal.
In other breaking news, Quigley is recovered from an injury that limited his availability so he is back where he started vs. Gill going old.
What message does that send to players and recruits?
Does it say “I’m willing to bench guys who’ve put in the time for the sake of my future”? Or does it say “I’m willing to play young guys to get them experience”? Or does it even say “I’m in a terrible situation and I’m throwing darts at this point”?
I don’t know that there’s a right answer to your question, so I’m just wondering what the potential impacts of going young would be.
by PenguinHawk on Oct 19, 2010 11:58 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Theres no "message" being sent
Coaches do this all the time. Time and time again when a team is struggling, young guys go in. I’ve seen good QBs on bad teams not start the last 4 games of the year so a redshirt freshman could get in and learn the ropes. Thats just how it is.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I disagree
You’re sending a message to recruits…..come to Kansas, work your ass off, and if things go bad when you’re an upper classmen, you’ll lose you spot (and your chance at the NFL) to younger players.
Yeah, if I was a recruit, I’d say f*ck that.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
Nope
It says if you’re not cutting it, you don’t play
Name ONE senior playing well right now who has warrented keeping their spot apart from Springer
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Wilson and Oguntodu
Laptad’s not looking great, but I think it has more to do with the DTs getting pushed around than it does his effort level
by PenguinHawk on Oct 19, 2010 1:07 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
eh I don't think that's necessarily the case...
most kids picking a college aren’t thinking that far ahead and they don’t really plan on failing so it’s not a huge deal in my opinion. The situation is a change in the staff and a general turnover in the program, so in that context I don’t think it says the same thing.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
Pretty sure this isn't a problem for our guys. Scouts aren't watching Kansas games anyway. They'll make their noise at the combine.
come to Kansas, work your ass off, and if things go bad when you’re an upper classmen, you’ll lose you spot (and your chance at the NFL) to younger players.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
The more you play, the more film you have to show the scouts.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
The more you play
Maybe this shows recruits that they have an opportunity to play early and earn a starting spot early. Playing time, especially early on, is a very big deal to recruits
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions
So where does it end?
Recruits are not stupid. If playing time early on is important to them, they know that playing time early on will be important to the classes that come in after them.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
It ends when the Jayhawks stop being embarrassed on the field.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
by Warden11 on Oct 19, 2010 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right now, the staff better be deleting tapes so the scouts don't see them.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
I think the main thing to look at
Is how productive these seniors are. I think Jonathon Wilson is playing well, so I wouldn’t flat out bench him. But I would mix in some reps for a McGriff or Omigie as well.
Everyone thinks playing young guys more means strait up benching the seniors, locking them up in some dark dungeon and never letting them play again. Thats not the case. The seniors can still start, just let the young guys start getting a lot of reps and playing time.
I think Thorson-Spencer, Dudley-Opurum are two strong examples. The two seniors in the equation here have played terrible all season. I’m all for letting the best guys play, but when you are losing as bad as we are, its tough to argue that we’d be more effective leaving in the older guys.
Shit happens when you win championships
Agreed on Wilson...
he’s done pretty good for this team this year. Considering the fact that our QB isn’t great at making the throws, Wilson has produced.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
Two things
I think HCTG “defaulted” to the guys who were already at the top of the totem pole (actually, the bottom of the totem poll is where the higher-ranking member sat in an actual totem poll, but that’s a topic for a whole different blog…www.dorkswhotalkabouttotempolesonline.com. This was in an effort to not rock the boat, to not seem like he was coming in and ruffling feathers – maybe because he wanted (wants) the team to buy in to the BELIEVE program. But as it became clear that Quigley, for instance, wasn’t cutting it, he moved on to Sims, but is still trying to give AQ his due (albeit as a backup).
Going young versus playing the best player has to come on a situation-by-situation basis. Of course they should start to look more toward the younger guys in general, and I’m sure they are already. But at the same time, if a young player is not quite ready, or hasn’t “earned” the spot yet, then playing the younger player can send the wrong message.
The only people who really know where [the edge] is are the ones who have gone over it.
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Oct 19, 2010 12:15 PM CDT reply actions
I also wonder
what effects in the locker room would be. Say you bench Wilson for McGriff, Thorson for Spencer, Dudley for Opurum, RJ for Williams or Parish on the D-line. Do those guys then start talking behind the staff’s backs about how pissed they are? All it takes is one or two. Then the lesser-known upperclassmen who don’t play start to take sides with them because they’ve been there for 4 or 5 years too, and don’t like what they see because it means they don’t have a chance of seeing the field. Soon you could have a strong undercurrent of guys disparaging the staff, lowering morale, and creating schisms behind-the-scenes. I don’t think Gill, whose reputation is built on positivity and players loving him, can handle losing 10 games and the good will of his team.
Don’t know that it would go down like that…just something to think about.
by PenguinHawk on Oct 19, 2010 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions
If they do this, screw them. (Though we're really reaching into speculation here)
Let the younger guys know there are two options on the team. Option A is with the team and Option B is not with the team if they want to follow the guys that don’t “believe”.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
"But as it became clear that Quigley, for instance, wasn’t cutting it, he moved on to Sims, but is still trying to give AQ his due (albeit as a backup)."
Quigley’s YPC = Sims’ YPC @ GT
Sims had more carries, and therefore more yds, but to say that Quigley wasn’t geting it done seems mistaken. Quigley’s availability was limited by an injury, not his ability. That’s also part of the reason Quigley is not a back up, but rather was named the starter this week.
Not sure who’s boat you are referring to rocking. It was a veritable chinese fire drill last spring of letting players decide where they wanted to sit.
This is probably as good a place as any to ask the question, “Since FB is a team game, and the performance of 1 player effects the performance of those around him, is it in the best interest of one freshmen to play alongside other freshmen?” Will a F RB have as much opportunity to run b/c a F OL is also playing? WR vs. QB? QB vs. RB? DE vs. DT? LB vs. DL? etc. etc.
I don't think that scenario is plausible
Because we already have young guys in some areas and are too thin in other areas to make an all out switch. I just thought there were a few specific instances where we aren’t getting production from seniors and thus the young guys should get an opportunity, so we can both see what they have and groom em more for next year
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Competition will drive the best to the top
so play those that are already there. Playing time talks….
I guess there's gotta be a break in the monotony, but Jesus, when it rains how it pours.
I guess another thing to think about here...
this doesn’t have to just apply to starters. Not that we have a ton of depth considering all the injuries etc….but even first off the bench maybe.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
I actually think going young sends a great message to recruits.
It says to them, “if I go to KU, I can get on the field immediately. I’m not going to be stuck behind some senior that can’t hold my jock just because he’s older.” Urban Meyer built up Florida so fast, in part by offering the same thing- immediate playing time for young stud recruits.
In basketball, the opportunity for immediate playing time is almost universally thought of as a positive in recruiting. Even though football players must go through 3 years of college instead of 1 before they can go pro, the more PT they get in those three years, the better (I’m not saying KU is about to pick up a whole bunch of guys that are ready to play in the NFL after their junior year, but I do think almost ever high school stud in the nation likes to think that about themselves).
Lastly, I don’t think seniors or other upperclassmen are owed anything more than the chance to compete for a job. To quote the always-brilliant Coach Hawkins, “this ain’t intramurals, brother. This is the Big 12!”
by KennyGregoryRockThaCradle on Oct 19, 2010 3:38 PM CDT reply actions
I agree
But do you bench a senior in favor of a sophomore just to get the sophomore more experience, when, in fact, the senior may be doing his job but the collective team is failing?
Problem is, though
The seniors aren’t doing their jobs. Lets look at them:
Wilson – playing well, like I said I’d leave him in just let the young WRs get some reps
Thorson – should have been benched weeks ago. Terrible. When he isn’t failing to block he is committing drive-killing penalties
Dudley – Not a Big 12 quality LB.
Springer – Solid MLB. Don’t have any other MLBs so this is a moot issue
OO – Has been decent, gotten burnt a lot. Both he and Strozier haven’t wowed me one bit.
Look if this was last year, and our seniors were Todd Reesing, Kerry Meier, D Stucky, etc I would never advocate this. Those guys are real-deal players. My point is if this team is going to fail every week, and our veteran guys aren’t going to produce (or even play hard for that matter), why not let young guys play? We can’t be any worse, and can only gain for the long run
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
If someone is waiting and is better
then I’m all for playing them. I don’t think older players should automatically play just because they’ve waited their turn. I just think that you field the best team you can, regardless of age.
Yup.
You’re right. Let’s just kick Chris Harris off the field and ruin his slim shot at the NFL because….well, because the young kids with no experience who couldn’t beat him for a starting spot need the experience.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
Seeing "Chris Harris" and "NFL" in the same line gave me a chuckle
No, we’d kick him off the field because he isn’t producing. Last time I looked, opposing QBs are having a turkey shoot against us…
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions
That's Chris Harris' fault?
No. That’s due to the fact we have no pass rush. No DL. Back in 2007 when we did have a DL and a pass rush and Chris Harris was starting as a true freshman (and getting most of the balls thrown his way because nobody wanted to test Talib), the NFL looked like a possibility to me.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
That's the problem with this whole idea
A big part of the reason for the lack of pass defense is that we put NO pressure on the QB. Darrelle Revis can’t cover a receiver for a full 10 seconds. We look at so many of these individual players and say they suck or they’re not doing their job, but football is the ultimate team sport. 9 or 10 guys can do exactly what they need to on a given play, and if one or two screw up, the whole things goes to hell. And we as fans don’t always know who missed their assignment, strayed from their gap, etc. I don’t think this is all as simple as we’re making it out to be.
by PenguinHawk on Oct 19, 2010 4:59 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
It's not the same guys screwing up every play.
If it was, we should get rid of them. How can so many support no changes when the status quo is so awful? This isn’t change for sake of change, this is change for the sake of not sucking! If there are NFL caliber guys on our team, THE COACHES KNOW!!! They can see who is in position! I’m not advocating trotting out 11 new players! But if there are players that are out of position or not making plays, and I would guess there are way more of these then NFL potentials out there, and there are backups that are competitive in practice, give them a shot. They deserve it just as much.
"This isn't change for sake of change"
I think that’s exactly what this.
On 116 D1 teams, the best player play. Period.
But since we suck and our season is over, we’re gonna bench our best players (or reduce their snaps) so that the younger players can get experience?
You do that and you set a precedent. And it’s my belief that recruits will be smart enough to know exactly what that is.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
That if you're going to get outscored 100 to 14, your playing time will go down?
You do that and you set a precedent. And it’s my belief that recruits will be smart enough to know exactly what that is.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
Exactly
What is so shocking and trend-settingly bad about yanking seniors not playing well on a team losing by 50 every week? Stop the friggin presses.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 9:19 PM CDT up reply actions
What's shocking is that the best players are no longer playing.
Again, the choice here is: play the best, forget the rest (like the rest of college football does)
Or
Sacrifice the best, play the youngsters so they get some experience so they’ll (maybe) be better in the future.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
Fine then
We’ll go 2-10 this year playing guys who aren’t playing well that will give us nothing in the future. As opposed to going 2-10 with unproven guys who could benefit from the experience.
You win.
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 20, 2010 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions
You don't honestly believe this, do you?
On 116 D1 teams, the best player play. Period.
Every other team in D1 is 100% efficient in evaluating the ability of every player on their roster? Every single one?
If we’re going to get throttled every week anyways, and Option A would be beneficial to the program’s future, while Option B would have no effect on the future, you’re crazy to take Option B.
by KennyGregoryRockThaCradle on Oct 19, 2010 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions
But that's what I'm trying to say
Options B most certainly does have an effect on the future. A bad one.
It tells a recruit….you may be the best player on the team, but if our season goes down the crapper you’re going to be sacrificed so we can get younger guys more experience so they’ll (maybe) be better in the future.
And guess what? Even on bad teams there could be a handful of players who have the potential to play at the next level. But screw anything they can do to increase their chance of that, we need to play the youngsters now.
How excited do you think recruits are going to be to enter into that situation?
You do it even ONCE and you’ve set a precedent from which you can’t return……that will always hang over the players both future and current. Yup. At Kansas the best players play….well, unless they get sacrificed so the younger kids can get more experience.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
I don't buy recruits thinking that at all.
As you’ve mentioned plenty of times in this thread, recruits think they’re going to the NFL. If they’re thinking that, they’re also thinking “No way will a coach be able to replace me”
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
that's my thought too...
I really don’t think these guys head into this thinking to themselves that they’ll get benched. Most of them are the best players on their teams or close to it and most have almost an inflated sense of their place in the program they might be headed to. I think we’re over analyzing the impact on recruiting, but I could be wrong.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
I'm not saying that they'll head into this thinking they'll get benched
I’m saying that they are smart enough to recognize that KU is benching the best players so that younger ones can get more experience for the future. And that will have a negative impact on KU’s ability to convince them to join.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
Other schools do it
Schools with crappy seasons do this ALL THE TIME. So they all had recruiting set backs?
Again, showing recruits they can play and contribute early is more of a rcruiting factor than benching seniors (who aren’t good anyways) when were losing.
Again, you’re not going to convince me that 3/4ths of our seniors are the best players at that position
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 20, 2010 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions
I've never heard of another school
sacrificing it’s players.
Ask any coach in America and he’ll tell you: I try to get my best players on the field as much as possible.
Again, we’re not talking about “Seniors (who arent’ good anyways)”. We’re talking about either:
a) playing the best, forget the rest, or
b) sacrificing the best, playing the inexperienced.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
Is that worse than getting your ass kicked week in and week out?
I’d imagine that’s the biggest negative impact on recruiting that we might see this year.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
Immediate playing time is more important
Immediate playing time and a starter opportunity is more important to a recruit than “a younger guy might play over me if I’m a senior on a bad team.”
If you don’t buy this argument, yous don’t know recruittin!
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 20, 2010 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions
If the seniors were doing their jobs,
the collective team wouldn’t be failing. If a junior/senior isn’t cutting it and there is a fresh/sop that looks in practice like he might be able to, start mixing him in and see. We don’t owe seniors anything. The best play, and if ur not clearly the best, tough. And the whole NFL argument doesn’t hold water for this team. If you are playing at an NFL caliber, you aren’t the problem and are not going to get benched.
by play4'ships on Oct 19, 2010 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Exactly what I was saying to Rivet earlier
Except much more in depth, thought out, and educational. I agree 100%
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Florida is a great example...
Oklahoma is another. Bob Stoops made the statement this year that he basically believes in playing the young guys because he feels he recruits at a level that he’s only going to get three years anyway so he might as well get three years out of his guys. He’s had several true freshman jump over the tops of sophomores and juniors.
I know it’s not the exact situation, but he’s basically saying that you don’t earn the right to play more just because you’ve been around longer.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
I know it’s not the exact situation, but he’s basically saying that you don’t earn the right to play more just because you’ve been around longer.
I’m fine with this. But you also don’t say that if things aren’t going well we’ll yank you just to get someone else valuable experience.
well they have the opposite problem...
Stoops gets to yank guys and put in players to gain experience because things ARE going so well.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
This
The reason those true freshan jumped over the tops of sophs and Jrs is because they were better. The best play. The best are playing.
Stoops didn’t just say….“hey I need to get my young kids experience….screw the upper classman who have put in their time and earned their starting spots”.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
How do we know the best are playing?
After the first game, we immediately changed QBs and RBs. Screw the youth thing, what kind of sign is it to a potential recruit that if you have one average game (like Pick did) you immediately lose your job? Its like Mangino is still coach…
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 19, 2010 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Seeing them everyday in practice
I’d hope the coaches would know who was the better option.
I don't have that faith in our coaches
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 20, 2010 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions
To me, it all goes back to Gill not knowing his team...
I made the argument a little while ago that Turner and his staff simply don’t know what they have. And that’s more apparent each game.
We’re all arguing about playing the best, or the youngest, etc… I don’t think even he knows who the best are…and he certainly doesn’t know how to use all of them properly.
If you had so little confidence in your starting qb that you pulled him in the first game – down one score – then he never should have been named the starter. Same with Sims/Bourbon. You might want to preserve their redshirt, but if you have so little confidence in who is ahead of them that you’ll change it up completely after 1 game, then those people should have never been in that spot.
I know it takes time to properly evaluate these guys, but even six games in, I don’t think he could even tell you who he thinks our best RB or QB are…let alone RT, etc…
Thats the point I was trying to make earlier
They clearly don’t know who the best is due to all the shuffling. If we are going to shuffle around anyways, why not shuffle in the young guys?
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 20, 2010 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions
aren't they already?
I’m surprised this thread has sparked so much controversy, because I think the coaches have already started doing this. In the last couple games, I’ve noticed increased snaps for Omigie, McGriff, Spencer (though due to injuries), Agostinho, Opurum, Mestan, and Kande. Sims, Sands, Matthews, McNulty, Young, Patmon and Terry have all been playing or starting since the first couple games. Who else do we want to see in there? You can make an argument that you want to see these guys getting more PT, but their snaps seem to be generally increasing anyway. I don’t think anyone’s advocating pulling redshirts, so there’s no problem with true freshmen staying on the bench.
Who is it people want to see out there who isn’t seeing the field already?
by PenguinHawk on Oct 20, 2010 10:12 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Yes, but
is this because those players are earning their time (being the best player at their position) or because the Coaches have given up and are just sacrificing the best players in order to give younger, more inexperienced players experience that might benefit them in the future?
That’s the argument here.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
and furthermore...
how are they earning there time. To some extent a player could be more talented, but have a crappy attitude which keeps him away from time. We have a DT that might fit that category but I understand he’s coming around a bit.
In general I think effort and leadership can factor into the equation at the end of the day when evaluating who’s “better”.
Bobby Bowden was always a big advocate of wanting a player with heart over a player with talent and he’d play the guy with more heart in the fight over talent with no heart any day of the week.
Questions, Comments? email me at denverjhawk@hotmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, Owen_Kemp
is this because those players are earning their time (being the best player at their position) or because the Coaches have given up and are just sacrificing the best players in order to give younger, more inexperienced players experience that might benefit them in the future?
And I’ve still got no idea how this is bad.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
I guess I'll try to give you an example then
Say you work for a company (football team). And you’re the best at what you do (you’re the best player at your position). But the company starts losing money due to other departments, not you (the team as a whole is losing). But because the company is starting to lose money, they fire you and replace you with a new worker making a lot less so they can save some capital (the coach sacrifices you so that younger, less experience players can get some experience in the hopes that they might be better in the future).
How are you going to feel about that?
Are you going to recommend that employer to other potential employees or clients?
Is your high school guidance conselor going to recommend any of his other students follow your footsteps to that employer?
There is a reputation risk involved.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
This doesn't apply though
Name me a senior that has earned their spot. Name me a guy who deserves to play over younger guys. Go:
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 20, 2010 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
ok
Sal Capra
Chris Harris
Jon Wilson
But, once again, this isn’t about Seniors. The choice is:
1) play the best, forget the rest, or
2) sacrifice the best, play the inexperienced with the (hope) that they might be better in the future.
Therefore, it sounds to me like your willing to bench: DJ Beshears? Daymond Patterson?, Tanner Hawkinson? Lubbock Smith?
And you don’t expect that to have any negative impact?
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
No I wouldn't bench any of the guys you mentioned
Because they are playing well. I’ve been talking about the Dudleys, Thorsons, etc all along.
And I’ve never had a problem starting guys like Wilson (who I complemented earlier) and Harris. I just want to see their young backups get some heavy reps mixed in as well
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 20, 2010 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions
New scenario (that is actually close to these players and situation)
Lets say you work for a company. You were at best, an average employee. You did your job, were ok at best. Company was successful due to other star employees. Now, those guys are gone, and the company as a whole is unsuccessful and filled mostly with young guys. You’ve never been that great, just an average worker who did their job.
The company is losing money. Boss comes to you and says “look, you’ve worked here a while, but you’ve never done that great. Done an average job at best.” We got someone coming in who is younger, requires less salary, and we can groom them for the future. And we know your best. We’ve seen it. We don’t know this guys best, were giving him a shot."
Sounds like real life to me
Shit happens when you win championships
by Andrew Clark on Oct 20, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
But the players aren't "at best, average"
the players you’re talking about benching earned their starting spots. They are the best players at their position on the team.
Now, the coaches may have made the wrong choice (although I find it hard to believe that TWO coaches made the same mistake, i.e. starting Harris, Wilson). But the coaches evaluation skills is a completely different topic.
build a damn football program, beat some ass, and get on tv more.
If the employer doesn't do that,
they’re not going to be around for long…kind of like the Jayhawks sitting at the bottom of the BCS teams.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
If the season is lost
I don’t see why you wouldn’t want to build for the future. That means getting talented, younger players experience. It doesn’t mean playing young walk ons over talented seniors but it does mean that if you have two guys of equal talent, one underclassman, one senior, then you play the underclassman because not only can you expect him to give you more of an effort to prove himself for the future but it’s experience in game situations as well.
by I need more Esteban on Oct 20, 2010 10:47 AM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Rock Chalk Talk
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
